Are Reforms futile or not?

[Tim Cornelis]

The insurrectionist anarchist tradition has long argued that reforms are completely ineffective as increased in wages will lead to increases in price and thus the cost of living. So in the end you have achieved nothing.

In Black Flame it was noted that this theory was accepted by "pre-Marxist socialist economists", implying these economists were theoretically undeveloped.

The question is, is this an economically sound theory or is it flawed?

[Zealot]

Reforms are first and foremost to stop revolutionary movements from gaining ground so that worker's instead squabble for reforms and only propels the labour aristocracy, blunting revolution.

[Invader Zim]

The insurrectionist anarchist tradition has long argued that reforms are completely ineffective as increased in wages will lead to increases in price and thus the cost of living. So in the end you have achieved nothing.

In Black Flame it was noted that this theory was accepted by "pre-Marxist socialist economists", implying these economists were theoretically undeveloped.

The question is, is this an economically sound theory or is it flawed?

Well, certain reforms improve the standard of living of a whole society. For example universal education and universal healthcare ensure, or at least propose to ensure, that certain living standards are universally maintained throughout a national group. The same argument can be made, to a lesser extent, in regards to welfare programs.

But that doesn't imply that massive discrepancies in standards of living do not exist - manifestly they do.

[Invader Zim]

Reforms are first and foremost to stop revolutionary movements from gaining ground so that worker's instead squabble for reforms and only propels the labour aristocracy, blunting revolution.

In many instances that is certainly true. It is well documented that various reforms have had an appeasing effect reducing social pressure. But it is dangerous to assume that is the root cause of reforms generally. For example, I've read very strong arguments that suggest that the revolution in Haiti and the Maroon wars played a major part, through fear of uprisings spreading, in making people in Britian and America far more receptive towards the abolition of the Slave Trade. That said, it would be foolish to discount the massive influence of other major socio-cultural events of the day, such as the massive growth of Evangelical relgion, one of the largest and most influencial being Wesleyan methodism, for example, which was fiercely opposed to slavery on religious grounds. It is no coincidence that the Clapham sect, the most significant anti-slavery political lobby in the British empire at that time, was comprised of evangelicals.

Similarly, if we look at more obvious examples of direct social reform, we see similar complex phenomenon all at play at the same time. The origins of the major reforms in Britain both during, and following, the Second World War are a major dispute among historians of the topic. To take the example of Richard Titmuss, he argued that that the war (particularly the evacuation programs) had the effect of a shining a sidelight on the plight of an impoverished urban underclass. Once visible and documented this, Titmuss argued, resulted in major political changes in the ideology of the middle classes which provided political impetus for social change and reform, thus leading to the the welfare state, etc, etc. But then again, I've seen plenty of historians take massive chuncks out of that argument and those like it, indeed some historians have built entire careers rubbishing it.

So yes, you are correct, but I don't think it is necessarily always the main factor.

[Robespierre Richard]

The insurrectionist anarchist tradition has long argued that reforms are completely ineffective as increased in wages will lead to increases in price and thus the cost of living. So in the end you have achieved nothing.

In Black Flame it was noted that this theory was accepted by "pre-Marxist socialist economists", implying these economists were theoretically undeveloped.

The question is, is this an economically sound theory or is it flawed?

To build on top of what others are saying, reforms are a reaction to revolutionary movements. This does not mean however that they shouldn't be at least demanded as part of a 'minimum programme,' something you can accept as an achievement. For example, Marx and Engels were strong supporters of the campaign for an eight-hour day. However, they were not reformists because they did not have a point where they would accept the existing state of things and develop conservative views.

The issue of reformism, however is that it gives up revolutionism in favor of pursuing change in the field of bourgeois politics only, as was the case with the Social Democrats. In that respect, reformism is in fact counter-productive because the only alternative you can have is less reform rather than more reform, empowering conservatism. A handy example of this was the healthcare reform where Obama's suggestion was essentially the system Mitt Romney set up in Massachusetts. However, Republicans were still against it and Obama never dared (or wanted) to go for more radical reforms, so the whole thing went to shit.

As such, reform is really only functional from a revolutionary perspective. From the perspective of the capitalist system it really makes no sense whatsoever as it means an increased standard of living, which means more money goin to common people rather than capitalists. It also exists from a populist perspective of course, rather than the liberal and corporatist ones that are predominant today, but with those the populist politicians usually do them out of self-interest rather than any sort of political reasons.

[Ostrinski]

While they may be ultimately futile, I don't think it really matters because capitalism is unsustainable anyway.

[Tim Cornelis]

What I am specifically wondering is whether increases in wages will lead to a rise in the cost of living.

For example,

the average wage is 1,000$ a month, and food prices are 100$ a month. Then after a few decades of workers' struggles wages are 2,000$ a month. Will it then be the case that food prices will be 200$ a month?

If that is an economically sound theory it would mean that labour union struggles are futile and an argument in favour of revolutionary syndicalism.

[Bronco]

Have you read Wage Labour and Capital and Value, Price and Profit? Marx talks about the relationship between wages and the price of a commodity in these, don't have time for a full response right now but I think that's quite a good starting point for this

[ColonelCossack]

What I am specifically wondering is whether increases in wages will lead to a rise in the cost of living.

For example,

the average wage is 1,000$ a month, and food prices are 100$ a month. Then after a few decades of workers' struggles wages are 2,000$ a month. Will it then be the case that food prices will be 200$ a month?

If that is an economically sound theory it would mean that labour union struggles are futile and an argument in favour of revolutionary syndicalism.

Where does the extra $1000 come from? From raising the cost of commodities.

For simplicity, let us say that everything a worker needs costs $1000, and they get paid, $1000. However, if they get $2000 a month (not accounting for inflation), they need to sell the comodities to the worker for a higher price- £2000.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Certain reforms are futile. It would be pretty stupid to think of a tax cut for the middle class as helping the needy, for example, or really making a definite difference to people. Political reforms such as proportional representation in bourgeois parliaments, or the prospective move to change the House of Lords into an elected/partially-elected body, are also useless, as they have no impact on the day-to-day lives of the working class.

However, we would look (and indeed would be) pretty stupid to argue against reforms such as the minimum wage, the 8 hour day and welfare-state measures that improve the day-to-day lives of the working class, just because it means our ideology is, in the short-term, less likely to get into power.

This could probably be expanded upon, but that is my basic view on the subject.

[Veovis]

Reforms are important because even though they're only a palliative measure, they both increase desire for more fundamental change and remind the working class of what they can achieve if they fight for something.

[Olentzero]

It's not an inherent characteristic of reforms to blunt revolutionary or radical moods; it's how they are fought for that has an influence. For instance, I've just started reading about Roosevelt's National Recovery Act of 1933 in Irving Bernstein's The Turbulent Years and the fight around certain aspects of it, like dues checkoff for unions, is a perfect example. The coal and steel industries were dead set against it, but they were forced to accept it because the coal miners flooded into the unions in 1933 and struck to get it. The newly unionized miners came out of the experience having learned that they can, in fact, fight like hell and get what they want; other workers watching and learning from the experience took those lessons home and used them to build later fights like the sit-down strikes of 1936.

That's the point: if the fight for reforms actively involves the working class and teaches them how to organize themselves to fight for more, that's a good thing. If, on the other hand, reforms are brought about over their heads by Great Men or Women, working people learn to be passive and wait for things to get better somewhere down the road. That's the thing any revolutionary ought to have a problem with, not reforms in and of themselves. Reforms are not revolution, to be sure, but to reject reforms out of hand simply because they are not revolution without realizing the potential opportunities for building revolutionary movements that lie therein is, in my opinion, criminally stupid.

[Welshy]

Fighting for reforms now a days is futile* and to be honest all reforms would do is just extend the life of capitalism as they just make the conditions of the working class tolerable enough to avoid revolution. However this doesn't mean we should oppose things that make the lives of the working class better, but as a tactic they are a dead end.


the fight around certain aspects of it, like dues checkoff for unions, is a perfect example.

While I get the message you are trying to make, dues check offs are a horrible example as they take away a way for the workers to keep the union leadership responsible (by withholding their dues).

EDIT: I should probably explain a bit more. What I mean by futile is that the capitalist class as of late has been in a fit of throwing out the gains made by past labor movements and are unwilling to make reforms now a days. Because of this most of the struggles we are seeing today are a fight against these attacks instead of a fight for things. So for us to fight for reforms to bring things back the way they were would be to miss out a great opportunity to argue for the need of a revolution since we are witnessing right now the impermanence of reforms and the true nature of the capitalist system and their servants in the governments of the world.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Have you read Wage Labour and Capital and Value, Price and Profit? Marx talks about the relationship between wages and the price of a commodity in these, don't have time for a full response right now but I think that's quite a good starting point for this

Yeah, read that as a starting point because Marx takes on this debate head-on and argues that fighting over wages is fighting over surplus and doesn't change the inherent "value" that the labor adds or the end price of the commodity - it just takes profits away from the capitalist and gives it back to the worker.

As to the more general question about the effectiveness of reforms, IMO if you are asking about reforms in the abstract, the question is already off-balance. Reforms in of themselves may make life easier but do not necessarily help move struggle forward. And realistically when the odd reform does come from above, it's generally watered down so much that it isn't as good as if it were won in a fight. If, however, people are organizing and fighting or even just massively agitating for a reform and the state is forced to give-in, then it can give people confidence in their own ability to change the rules in society.

[Olentzero]

dues check offs are a horrible example as they take away a way for the workers to keep the union leadership responsible (by withholding their dues).Direct election and recall of officers, up to and including national leadership, is a much more effective method. Just as an aside.

[Welshy]

Direct election and recall of officers, up to and including national leadership, is a much more effective method. Just as an aside.

I sent you a PM that explains my position in more detail but I just want to emphasize that I said "a way" as in one of the ways union members can keep union officials accountable. So this doesn't mean that it is better than direct election and recall of officers, but I don't see why one would want to limit their tool set that use to maintain accountability of officials.