Chomsky vs Spartacist on Reforms and Democrats

[TheCuriousJournalist]

I must say I found Chomsky's point very powerful.

While I do not agree that reform is the limit to what should be sought after, if it improves the lives of the proletariat, why should it be regarded in a negative manner?

After all, our revolution may come some day in the future, but until then, people's lives go on, and small changes can make those lives better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKIu-JjfIXE

[Jimmie Higgins]

There is a benefit, but not all reforms are equally beneficial to working class struggle. The Black Panthers fought for lunch programs for poor kids and in many ways it was a fantastic reform because it showed that a group of anticapitalist antiracist radicals could do more for people in their community than the richest country in the world was interested in doing. And it was seen as part of a larger struggle by people trying to win more power for themselves against the system.

But outside the context of popular struggle against racism and specifically racism in the form of brutality and neglect of the black working class by the liberal urban governments, it just becomes social work and now the same things are done by NGOs who and it doesn't ultimately help workers as much as before because it's just privatized charity and the food industry now uses lunch programs to categorize Doritos as vegetables and shit like that.

So I think it's the context and if fighting for the reform actually helps working people or the oppressed to organize themselves and win confidence that matters. Reforms handed from above are generally watered-down before they become implemented, can just as easily be taken away later, and most importantly don't help us learn to fight for ourselves.

[The Idler]

Because calling for reforms whilst concealing some other aim (which might be more significant) is deceiving the class into supporting you.

[Marxaveli]

I respect Chomsky as an intellectual, and I consider him one of my influences on my political thought. But I disagree with him on this point....the ruling class never, ever just hands over their power. Revolution, combined with some reform, will be necessary for proletarian emancipation. It sucks, but that's how it is.

[RedGrunt]

While reforms don't really create class consciousness, actually are really done as a concession or bribe away from such, in the long run when shit gets hectic the first thing to go usually are these reforms, and social programs. If the bourgeis start taking away social programs from those whom have fought for such and/or have grown used to them then the bourgeois are going to have a problem on their hands.

Regardless, our job really isn't to fight for reforms but to fight for actual change - and that's not going to come by trying to reorganize the system, it's going to come by tearing it down and building anew. You try to raise class consciousness and make the working class aware of its position within society - which, if successful enough, will end up causing the bourgeois to give out the reforms - because they're bribes and when the bourgeois is scared, it'll do whatever it has to to retain its position and power.

[manic expression]

While I do not agree that reform is the limit to what should be sought after, if it improves the lives of the proletariat, why should it be regarded in a negative manner?
Because a slave who gets Christmas day off is still a slave.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Noam Chomsky's Greatest Hits:

"Vote for John Kerry."

"Vote for Barrack Obama."

"This [USA] is the best country in the world."

[Lucretia]

While reforms don't really create class consciousness, actually are really done as a concession or bribe away from such, in the long run when shit gets hectic the first thing to go usually are these reforms, and social programs. If the bourgeis start taking away social programs from those whom have fought for such and/or have grown used to them then the bourgeois are going to have a problem on their hands.

I think you raise a good point here about the need to situate a reform in its proper context. In situations of low working class activism, moderate reforms are an indispensable way of lighting the fuse of class organising and education. In situations that are potentially revolutionary, in which large numbers of people have been radicalized, reforms are no longer good and should no longer be the aim of a radical movement. Rather, these same reforms which in more quiescent times are the sole means of awakening the working class, become in periods of radicalization a way for the ruling classes to placate more revolutionary activity.

In this way, revolutionary socialists don't support all reforms, and don't attach themselves to the support of the same reform in every context. As Lenin said, "We pursue an independent policy and put forward only such reforms as are undoubtedly favourable to the interests of the revolutionary struggle, that undoubtedly enhance the independence, class-consciousness and fighting efficiency of the proletariat." In opposition to the reformists who advocate "the most moderate of the schemes in vogue" for tackling a particular problem, revolutionary socialists advocate the most radical of the realizable options. And indeed, it is only through this way of operating that any reforms are achieved at all.


Regardless, our job really isn't to fight for reforms but to fight for actual change - and that's not going to come by trying to reorganize the system, it's going to come by tearing it down and building anew. You try to raise class consciousness and make the working class aware of its position within society - which, if successful enough, will end up causing the bourgeois to give out the reforms - because they're bribes and when the bourgeois is scared, it'll do whatever it has to to retain its position and power.

Fighting for actual change, trying to reorganize the system, sometimes requires fighting for reforms. Sometimes, calling for reforms acts as a brake on the movement. As Luxemburg said in her wonderful pamphlet "Reform or Revolution," it is a theoretical error to dichotomize reform and revolution just as much as it is a mistake to equate them. They are dialectically related.

[SHORAS]

Keep on voting for capitalism kids.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Noam Chomsky's Greatest Hits:

"Vote for John Kerry."

"Vote for Barrack Obama."

"This [USA] is the best country in the world."

Hasn't he said repeatedly something about how great the founding fathers were, in a manner far too enthusiastic?

[SHORAS]

Hasn't he said repeatedly something about how great the founding fathers were, in a manner far too enthusiastic?

I would suspect in a manner like Marx would say capitalism was progressive. He's not that mental, he usually puts things in some kind of context.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The more reforms achieved the higher the standard of living for the worker. Not only does the worker continue to strive for more, but they realize the limitations of reform.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Reforms presuppose a reformable capitalism. So long as it has this character, the revolutionary nature of the working class exists only latent form. It will even cease being conscious of its class position and identify its aspirations with those of the ruling classes. But when capitalism is forced by its own development to recreate the conditions which lead to the formation of class consciousness, it will also bring back the revolutionary demand for workers’ control as a demand for socialism. It is true that all previous attempts in this direction have failed, and that new ones may fail again. Still, it is only through the experiences of self-determination, in whatever limited ways at first, that the working class will be enabled to develop toward its own emancipation." - Paul Mattick

[MustCrushCapitalism]

We do have to accept that revolution may never happen, and as such, any improvement that can be made, should be made. For that reason, I'm willing to support reformists, despite doubting that they can change much.

[OHumanista]

I go with Lenin with this one.
The aim should always be revolution and that should be made VERY clear. But while it's not time for a revolution agitating for reforms is essential. (not any reform mind you).
We must leech reforms, with no gratitude or satisfaction, we achieve one we ask for the next. Sooner or later the system will say "no", and then you can show the working class why a revolution is the only permanent and complete solution.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Reform is a method, the social revolution is our aim.

I'm literally sick of seeing threads on reform.

Read Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution.

[Belleraphone]

Noam Chomsky's Greatest Hits:


"This [USA] is the best country in the world."
Didn't he say that it was the freest country in the world, not the best? Or maybe it was the because it's the freest country.


Hasn't he said repeatedly something about how great the founding fathers were, in a manner far too enthusiastic?
He's called most of the founding father rich elitists that did not care about the working people, but did have sympathy to Thomas Jefferson who had more populist ideas.

[#FF0000]

Read Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution.

Er, didn't Luxemburg herself say that reform for it's own sake was worthless?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Er, didn't Luxemburg herself say that reform for it's own sake was worthless?

"The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim." - from the very first paragraph of RoR.

And "Viewing the situation from the current standpoint of our party [this is the point she defends], we say that as a result of its trade union and parliamentary struggles, the proletariat becomes convinced, of the impossibility of accomplishing a fundamental social change through such activity and arrives at the understanding that the conquest of power is unavoidable."

Reform for the sake of reform? You are correct in stating it's worthless.

Reform for the sake of revolution is the real premise, one that holds its worth.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I must say I found Chomsky's point very powerful.

While I do not agree that reform is the limit to what should be sought after, if it improves the lives of the proletariat, why should it be regarded in a negative manner?

After all, our revolution may come some day in the future, but until then, people's lives go on, and small changes can make those lives better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKIu-JjfIXE
social democracy and social liberalism have done more to sustain capitalism then any other 20th century political movement. Without the reforms, the hierarchy would collapse.

[RedGrunt]

Fighting for actual change, trying to reorganize the system, sometimes requires fighting for reforms. Sometimes, calling for reforms acts as a brake on the movement. As Luxemburg said in her wonderful pamphlet "Reform or Revolution," it is a theoretical error to dichotomize reform and revolution just as much as it is a mistake to equate them. They are dialectically related.

I agree, our goal should always be revolution but reforms are very much apart of the struggle. I didn't mean to polarize my first and second paragraphs.

In the cases of a reform for universal education, for instance, who can deny that this would be a great win for the working class within capitalism?

[Jose Gracchus]

I think he's absolutely wrong here. I think he's a privileged intellectual (it happens though, I'm not up in arms about this part of it like some) who does not have the connections or spirit of actual class struggle, and honestly seems quite uninterested in it (I don't remember the last time he wrote about contemporary strikes, labor actions, aside from their peripheral role in the Egyptian regime change).

Abstensionism all the way baby. When stuff like Occupy exists, it is unconscionable to shore up the Democrats electorally.

[black magick hustla]

:shrugs: if you guys ahd saw the sparts hilarious laundry list of transitional demands in the lansing ga you'd understand that orthotrotskyism is the aspergers version of social demorcracy

[Rafiq]

I would suspect in a manner like Marx would say capitalism was progressive. He's not that mental, he usually puts things in some kind of context.

Don't ever compare the works of Marx on capitalism to the liberal asslicking shit that comes out of chomskys mouth.

Marx praised capitqlism for good reason, not to appeal to liberals though