What Is the Point of Reforms

[Ilyich]

I realize there are probably other threads covering this topic. I became curious about reforms under capitalism while reading this thread regarding the Scandinavian system (http://www.revleft.com/vb/looking-criticism-scandinavian-t163728/index.html?t=163728). Daniel DeLeon once said of reforms under capitalism,


As a poodle may have his hair cut long or his hair cut short, as he may be trimmed with pink ribbons or with blue ribbons, yet he remains the same old poodle, so capitalism may be trimmed with factory laws, tenement laws, divorce laws and gambling laws, but it remains the same old capitalism. These “humanitarian parts” are only trimming the poodle. Socialism, one and inseparable with its "antirent and anticapital parts," means to get rid of the poodle.

DeLeon seems right. Reforms seemingly only serve to trim the sharp points of capitalism. Socialism is on a completely plane than capitalism and as socialists, it seems we should solely be encouraging society to leap from one plane to the other. It seems we should not waste our time trying to change this plane. In some ways, reforms seem to even discourage revolution by making workers more content with the current system. However, many socialists, including myself, have fought and died, past and present, for the eight hour day, for minimum wage, for workplace safety, for collective bargaining, etc. Why? Do reforms bring us any closer to socialism? Do they build class consciousness Does them struggle for them give socialists the opportunity to connect with workers? Does a worker with less working hours for more pay have a better chance of being educated in socialism? If so, then how? I am not an impossibilist and I support reforms, but sometimes I wonder why I do.

[OHumanista]

Probably because a few hard won reforms may prevent some disasters among the population. Reform is limited, crude and are(relatively) easy to remove. And yet sometimes it may seem like the only alternative. Especially when a population is being brutally exploited and there is still no revolutionary action, nor is a conciouness forming. And I think this one of the main limitations of some of our comrades. Terrible conditions and exploitation do not necessarily lead to a revolution.

What I am trying to say is, if a worker thinks he can't topple capitalism at that moment he is tempted to settle for a "compromise" which is reform.

[ZeroNowhere]

Technically speaking, Daniel De Leon did advocate the economic organization of the working class, the basis of its political organization, struggling for 'reforms', although the task of the political organization was not any specific reforms or 'ideal capitalism', but rather the rule of the working class as such through its own organs.



Only the economic organization may and must reach out after crumbs -- "improved conditions" -- on its way to emancipation. The very nature of the organization preserves it from the danger of "resting satisfied." of accepting "improvement" for "goal." The economic organization is forced by economic laws to realize it can preserve no "improvement" unless it marches onward to emancipation.

Otherwise with the political organization. It must be "whole hog or none." The very nature of its existence -- itself only a path clearer for the economic organization, and only a temporary means -- renders the political organization prone to "rest satisfied" with incidentals and "improvements."

There is no danger of the true political party of socialism, that is, the party that flows from classconscious unions, dragging behind it the navel-string of "immediate demands" -- as well imagine an Declaration of Independence with "immediate demands."

In any case, claiming that reforms are pointless in a time when the working class is suffering in a crisis seems a bit off. The working class will not revolt because of the persuasive powers of socialist propaganda, or because we can formulate a nice-sounding utopia, but will act in its own, material interests, to which communism is the necessary conclusion (whether or not they are aware of it at the outset); and, of course, this takes the immediate form of inroads against profits for higher wages, shorter working hours and so on, and in times of crisis this takes on an ultimately revolutionary significance. Crises are caused by an overly low rate of profit, but the working class, if it is to alleviate the palpable alienation from the social product represented by crisis, must lower this profit further, and ultimately only escape from this vicious cycle by a complete expropriation.

As Marx comments:


My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.

(For reference, I have written a bit more about reforms and reformism here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/reforms-measure-bribery-t155677/index.html).)

[Sentinel]

Do reforms bring us any closer to socialism?Not necessarily. The reforms themselves are valuable as they improve the lives of the workers, which certainly is something to be supported in itself, revolutionary or not. But it is the struggle for the reforms, which can be a revolutionary act if part of a socialist transitional program. It is indeed through struggle that workers become class conscious and realise their collective strength.

By taking initiatives to and actively participating in workers struggles marxists get the opportunity to outline the benefits of a genuinely socialist programme to the workers. But if we don't participate in them we will be talking down from an ivory tower, and really can't expect anyone to listen to our talk about revolution. Therefore it's a disastrious ultra-left approach to not support workers struggles for reforms, union struggle etc.



Do they build class consciousness The struggle for them certainly does.


Does them struggle for them give socialists the opportunity to connect with workers?Yes, if they participate in the struggle actively and full out, and on the same conditions as the workers.


Does a worker with less working hours for more pay have a better chance of being educated in socialism? If so, then how?If the worker has successfully fought for those things, they have learned the true collective power and importance of their class in society and should be more receptive to the ideas of their socialist comrades than others, yes.

[ComradeOm]

However, many socialists, including myself, have fought and died, past and present, for the eight hour day, for minimum wage, for workplace safety, for collective bargaining, etc. Why?Because for socialists revolution is not a goal in itself. What we are constantly struggling for is the betterment of the position of the working class. All the stuff we typically talk about here - revolution, Marxism, etc - is really just a natural extension of this core remit: improving peoples' lives. In the long run this will entail the reordering of society but there are battles to be fought in the short-term as well

And this - ie, supporting measures that benefit the working class - is the only real test to tell whether someone is actually a socialist. Question anybody who dismisses such gains or the struggle to obtain/defend them in the name of some future revolution


Do reforms bring us any closer to socialism? Do they build class consciousness Does them struggle for them give socialists the opportunity to connect with workers? Does a worker with less working hours for more pay have a better chance of being educated in socialism?A lot of these questions are focused on the worker. That's fair enough but also consider the impact of reforms on the bourgeoisie

To be blunt: reforms are not free. There is a cost associated with them, whether directly monetary or indirectly through limits on capitalist freedoms to accumulate profits. Reforms are however necessary if the bourgeoisie is to maintain its hegemony, as opposed to ruling through naked coercion, and hence they are largely tolerated. This explains a great deal of the complexity associated with the modern state and its role in society

Now rather than viewing reform and revolution as mutually exclusive, which they only become in a revolutionary scenario, we should be aware that every concession that we wring from the bourgeoisie weakens them and raises the expectations of the workers. Revolution is only possible when the ruling class is unable to provide further reforms, unable to further placate the proletariat. Each concession that we obtain further raises the bar and advances us slightly further along the road to a socialist society

[jake williams]

A lot of reforms materially expand the scope of action of the working class. Winning shorter working days makes it considerably easier for workers to organize. Anti-sexist victories, for example, make it harder to exploit divisions within the working class and make it easier for the whole working class, specifically women, to participate in revolutionary social change (and without whose participation such change is not possible).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now rather than viewing reform and revolution as mutually exclusive, which they only become in a revolutionary scenario, we should be aware that every concession that we wring from the bourgeoisie weakens them and raises the expectations of the workers. Revolution is only possible when the ruling class is unable to provide further reforms, unable to further placate the proletariat. Each concession that we obtain further raises the bar and advances us slightly further along the road to a socialist society

At least another person here understands the, ahem, "anatomy of revolution" with regards to many revolutions resulting from inability to implement further reforms.

To the OP: The point of immediate, intermediate, and threshold demands is what Comrade Om and Jake Williams said. :)

[Die Rote Fahne]

Apart from raising class conscious through the struggle for them, they improve the living standards of the worker, which is also a good thing. Just remember, reform isn't our only method, and it is not our goal. Our goal is the social revolution.

Reform or Revolution, by Rosa Luxemburg. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm)

Check that out.