Give them reform or they'll give us revolution.

[eric922]

I'm not sure where I heard this, but it seems to sum up the capitalist state's method of dealing with crisis, when things get too bad the state offers various reforms to make the system more bearable and stave off revolution, i.e. New Deal. My question, is why haven't they done that this time? Is it simply too soon, or are the capitalists today simply more shortsighted than their forefathers? I know this a question that might be unanswerable, its just something I've been wondering as election season nears us and no real reformist candidate has emerged like FDR did in the 30s.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

After so many decades of anti-communist propaganda saturating the daily lives of all the civillians, they feel it's unnecessary. Especially post-Reagan, the powerful seem to have managed to convince a large portion of the working class that our fellow worker is our enemy; that what is good for big business is good for all of us. That it's good to work hard and accept a low wage, yet somehow manage to barely survive; that it builds character and proves we're not leeches like "those welfare queens."

It's depressing. At the same time, reform is a poison. While it may relieve some of the suffering of workers, it also staves off revolution. It tells everyone "See, capitalism ain't so bad!"

[Per Levy]

well unlike the 30s there is no soviet union, not communist threat and hardly a visable working class movement. from the perspective of the ruling class they dont need to share a little of their wealth in order to keep the status quo alive.

[bcbm]

they can't afford to give reforms, the system is in a very deep crisis

[GPDP]

they can't afford to give reforms, the system is in a very deep crisis

This is the correct answer IMO. Yeah yeah, no Soviet Union, weak worker's movement, all that jazz applies too. Thing is, unlike back in the early 20th century, capitalism has pretty much reached its apex now. It is now a truly global system. There are very few to no new markets to exploit, save those opened through warfare, which itself puts strain on the system. As a result, capitalism can do nothing but slowly decay.

With these conditions in place, even if workers got out of their lull and demanded reform en masse, the ruling class could not give it to us even if they wanted to, because it would probably entail a massive cut back on their wealth, which really goes against their interests. As a result, you would instead expect increased repression rather than an attempt at reform. And in fact, this is precisely what we are currently seeing now wherever workers rise up and fight for their interests.

[Blake's Baby]

There is some merit in both the idea that the capitalists can't afford reforms and also that they're not really facing a severe threat.

However, taking a wider perspective than the US, or the US plus Greece maybe, it's quite obvious that this tactic has been used this time. When the 'Arab Spring' was kicking off, indeed at the same time as Saudi Arabia was lending troops to Bahrain to put down anti-autocracy/anti-austerity demonstrations there, the Saudi government announced a massive social welfare programme. The cynical might say it was precisely the kind of 'give them reform or they'll give us revolution' tactic that eric922 refers to.

Obviously the Saudi government isn't in the same situation as many other governments, but there are essentially only two tactics, that often go hand in hand (or rather, what gives with one hand takes with the other, or maybe one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, or some such mixed metaphor involving hands): repression, and reform. We can see both going on in Egypt, for instance, where 'reform' means playing up 'democracy' while leaving the basis of the system unchanged and repressing the protests.

The bourgoisie needs to tie the working class to the idea of 'national capital'. If (let's say) 'all Egyptians are in this together' it's harder to argue that the working class should fight for its own interests. If investment is what will forge that 'national' consciousness (as FDR's New Deal was intended to do) then that's what the bourgeoisie will do - and hang the cost. It would rather cut its cloth to hang on to power than throw everything away because it refused to make any sacrifices (unless it's Gadhaffi, of course, but not every representative of the ruling class everywhere in the world necessarily makes all the best decisions either for themselves or their class).

[piet11111]

The age of reformism was based on the collective ruin of the productive forces of Europe and Asia by WW2 and the rapid continual growth of the market that was made possible by the war.

Capitalism also had the money then to pay for reforms but now the market has nowhere to grow to and the money to pay for those reforms are cutting into profits and wages are too high.
In order to restore profitability they have to attack every gain the working class has made undermining our ability to consume.