Futility of electoral politics

[Robocommie]

This is not to make a case for reformism, nor is it an argument for strict avoidance of mild reformism, but rather to discuss and confront a liberal argument I came up against recently.

Essentially, the point is this; "Progressive reforms are capable of improving our lives without the need for a bloody, violent and uncertain revolution. In fact, not only is it capable, it is doing so. The evidence for this is the fact that, globally, parliamentary democracy is now the norm as opposed to despotism or feudalism, and while corruption, repression and oligarchy are still problems worldwide, they are at least globally recognized as problems and progress is being made to end them. Progress is being made and will continue to be made, however haltingly, without violent revolution."

Now, I have my thoughts on the problems with this assertion but I'd like to hear the board's thoughts on it before I weigh in on it myself.

[jookyle]

Well, one way to look at it is that these reforms are made to pacify the people. Give them a little and they stop making so much noise. This is basically improving things on the surface, on the micro level, if you will. Basically a means to maintain the structure of the system as it is. It may get more glitter on the surface but it's the same at it's core.

[Robocommie]

Well, one way to look at it is that these reforms are made to pacify the people. Give them a little and they stop making so much noise. This is basically improving things on the surface, on the micro level, if you will. Basically a means to maintain the structure of the system as it is. It may get more glitter on the surface but it's the same at it's core.

Which is why you see a lot more political violence in undeveloped countries, where the economy relies on producing raw materials for industrialized nations. Because the local bourgeoisie has a lot less room to give before they start to feel the pinch, they get far more aggressive in squashing dissent.

As I understand it though, that's pretty much basic Lenin, isn't it?

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Let's take this as fact, for the sake of experiment. These reforms still have to work within Capitalism. Some of your biggest Welfare States in Europe are incapable of sustaining it, and the governments are facing huge problems, causing them to cut the system. This is due to less tax revenue, and higher social expenses for health-care, unemployment, housing, food stamps etc. Oligarchy, corruption, oppression,etc, are all present in Capitalism, for them to go, Capitalism must go.

These "reformers" are also restricted. For them to run, it costs millions of dollars, and the only people who can provide those funds are the fat cats. The government is flooded with puppet politicians. Also, life isn't better in America, or Europe. 15.1 percent of people living in the United States live in poverty.
More than one in five children live in households that struggle to put food on the table. That's 16.2 million children. Most Americans (51.4 percent) will live in poverty at some point before age 65. Return of mass poverty in Europe. (http://wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/pers-j05.shtml)

EDIT : I must also note, poverty in the United States is based if you make less than $5589.00.

[jookyle]

Which is why you see a lot more political violence in undeveloped countries, where the economy relies on producing raw materials for industrialized nations. Because the local bourgeoisie has a lot less room to give before they start to feel the pinch, they get far more aggressive in squashing dissent.

As I understand it though, that's pretty much basic Lenin, isn't it?

In some ways. TBH, I actually came to this way of thinking about it personally before I read Lenin. There was a time were I was pretty adverse to reading Lenin. The idea was first introduced to me as a critique of social-democracy by Terry Eagleton. Just pondering on it led me to the conclusion that the same methods are used in liberal-democracies and so forth when I began to study power politics and the political economy more closely. If you wanted to be a bit more dramatic about it(but perhaps it's even closer to the point) you could say that reforms are basically a way to buy off revolution.

To agree with reformism as opposed to revolution you're essentially saying you're okay with the system. It's really that simple. Reformists are people who want to make the system nicer but fundamentally agree with the system. I posted this quote from DeLeon in another thread but I'll post it here too because I think it does justice as to what reforms accomplish in the big picture:


Take, for instance, a poodle. You can reform him in a lot of ways. You can shave his whole body and leave a tassel at the tip of his tail; you may bore a hole through each ear, and tie a blue bow on one and a red bow on the other; you may put a brass collar around his neck with your initials on, and a trim little blanket on his back; yet, throughout, a poodle he was and a poodle he remains. Each of these changes probably wrought a corresponding change in the poodle’s life. When shorn of all his hair except a tassel at the tail’s tip he was owned by a wag who probably cared only for the fun he could get out of his pet; when he appears gaily decked in bows, probably his young mistress’ attachment is of tenderer sort; when later we see him in the fancier’s outfit, the treatment he receives and the uses he is put to may be yet again and probably are, different. Each of these transformations or stages may mark a veritable epoch in the poodle’s existence. And yet, essentially, a poodle he was, a poodle he is and a poodle he will remain.

That is reform.

[Robocommie]

In some ways. TBH, I actually came to this way of thinking about it personally before I read Lenin. There was a time were I was pretty adverse to reading Lenin. The idea was first introduced to me as a critique of social-democracy by Terry Eagleton. Just pondering on it led me to the conclusion that the same methods are used in liberal-democracies and so forth when I began to study power politics and the political economy more closely. If you wanted to be a bit more dramatic about it(but perhaps it's even closer to the point) you could say that reforms are basically a way to buy off revolution.

To agree with reformism as opposed to revolution you're essentially saying you're okay with the system. It's really that simple. Reformists are people who want to make the system nicer but fundamentally agree with the system.

Yes, in fact there's a really useful and illustrative quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt in which he explicitly spells out that the only way to prevent a revolution in a time of crisis (such as the Great Depression) is to reform it. He specifically states that his liberalism is an expression of a sort of conservatism, because he in fact wishes to preserve the institutions he is reforming.



I posted this quote from DeLeon in another thread but I'll post it here too because I think it does justice as to what reforms accomplish in the big picture:

Wow, Daniel de Leon was kind of a weird guy. :lol:

No but seriously, that is a good quote and a pretty good metaphor. Thanks for sharing that.

[Rowan Duffy]

Some of your biggest Welfare States in Europe are incapable of sustaining it, and the governments are facing huge problems, causing them to cut the system. This is due to less tax revenue, and higher social expenses for health-care, unemployment, housing, food stamps etc.

This narrative is incorrect. The current budget problems are from transfers of debt from Bankers to the public. Everything else is in the noise.



These "reformers" are also restricted. For them to run, it costs millions of dollars, and the only people who can provide those funds are the fat cats. The government is flooded with puppet politicians.

These are real deep problems with bourgeois democracy. However, it doesn't mean you can get around them by ignoring them. Every strategy is going to require convincing the public which puts us at a huge disadvantage since we are disadvantaged in terms of resources.

The question of reform or revolution is not in my opinion well posed. Historically revolutions are events that happen very seldom, and they are not created by the militancy of the population. Even the widespread illegitimacy of the state is not sufficient. What needs to happen is that the class or constituents of the state itself must become disorganised or lose faith in their own project. The state itself has to go into serious fragmentation before revolution can seriously be considered.

Further, revolutionary situations are tremendously disorganised. They are a bad period in which to experiment as the cost to any experimental failure can be incredibly high.

The manner in which we should be orientating is instead, to try and find flexible approaches in which we can build up institutions that can potentially be the "new society in the shell of the old". That is we should focus on the development of new forms of organisation and production. This will very likely not be sufficient to become the hegemonic system, but if there *is* a revolutionary period, there will be institutions that can explode into the space made open by the revolution so that they can become hegemonic.

This way of thinking about revolution does not pose reform in opposition to revolution. Instead it asks of each reform - "How will this reform place us in our pursuit of the revolutionary change of society". If it appears to be a cul de sac then it still might be worth while just on the basis that it relieves the suffering of the working class to some extent, however we should always carefully weight whether or not there is a reform that can be gained by concession that is more likely not to at some point be little more than a stumbling block in our later struggles.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"Progressive reforms are capable of improving our lives without the need for a bloody, violent and uncertain revolution. In fact, not only is it capable, it is doing so. The evidence for this is the fact that, globally, parliamentary democracy is now the norm as opposed to despotism or feudalism, and while corruption, repression and oligarchy are still problems worldwide, they are at least globally recognized as problems and progress is being made to end them. Progress is being made and will continue to be made, however haltingly, without violent revolution."

Well yes this is basically THE liberal argument isn't it.

Countering this argument means breaking it down into a class view and away from crude generalities and false universality. Got better for who, what and how?

Then once you can look at these issues more specifically there's no way to truthfully and knowledgeably argue that progress is some sort of gradual straight line. The severity of racism in the US has gone up and down, the same can be said of most rights, there was more free-speech right after the American Revolution than a little while later during the French Revolution because the leaders were afraid of radical republican ideas.

Once you can demonstrate that progress isn't just some natural and gradual process, then it becomes the question of "how things got better". At that point when you look at specifics, almost all significant progress (as far as workers and the oppressed are concerned) comes from struggle - often violent and bloody, sometimes even revolutionary.

Slavery didn't end peacefully and the virtual revolution of reconstruction was necessary for blacks to gain normal US rights after that - but was defeated, once again showing progress doesn't go one way. It took more struggle 100 years later to make more change and that struggle involved a great deal of violence on both sides.

Workers struggles are the same - workers have less rights now than in the mid-20th century - why, because there has been a decline in militant struggle in favor of peaceful negotiation with the bosses.

If you pull back and look at history in such a generalized and sweeping way, then you can make all kinds of arguments. I'm sure Hitler claimed things were better under him than during the "chaos" and economic instability of Wiemar.

[ckaihatsu]

The manner in which we should be orientating is instead, to try and find flexible approaches in which we can build up institutions that can potentially be the "new society in the shell of the old". That is we should focus on the development of new forms of organisation and production.


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/

[ckaihatsu]

The manner in which we should be orientating is instead, to try and find flexible approaches in which we can build up institutions that can potentially be the "new society in the shell of the old". That is we should focus on the development of new forms of organisation and production.


Also:





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/





Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property





Associated material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process

labor [supply] -- Labor supply is selected and paid for with existing (or debt-based) labor credits

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily





Determination of material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources may be created and sourced from projects and production runs

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination





Material function

communist administration -- Assets and resources are collectively administered by a locality, or over numerous localities by combined consent [supply]

labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]





Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process





Propagation

communist administration -- A political culture, including channels of journalism, history, and academia, will generally track all known assets and resources -- unmaintained assets and resources may fall into disuse or be reclaimed by individuals for personal use only

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may create templates of political priority lists for the sake of convenience, modifiable at any time until the date of activation -- regular, repeating orders can be submitted into an automated workflow for no interruption of service or orders

A further explanation and sample scenario can be found here:


'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev


'Hours as a measure of labor’

tinyurl.com/yh3jr9x


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/

[Le Socialiste]

Progressive reforms, while not ideal, are of some importance. Their significance is twofold: to serve as a rallying point from which further actions may be formulated and acted out (many of which lead away from the drudgery and defeatism so prevalent in electoral politics), while serving as a barometer of public opinion. In no way is this an endorsement of a solely electoral strategy. While many to the right (i.e. liberals, moderates, conservatives) hold several misconceptions about the effectiveness of reformism, it is absolutely essential for the left to dispel any illusions amongst its own base. Reformism may at points end up 'improving' the material state of society without fully altering the fundamental position of one's class. Reformists seek to renegotiate the terms of exploitation, not abolish it. They're typically never even aware that that's all they are doing. The futility of reformism doesn't signal the left's refusal to work within its boundaries; it merely entails a different form of organization that's ultimately necessary in order to mobilize beyond the defensiveness of electoral strategies.

Reforms are won when the ranks of any given movement are organized, especially in periods of instability. The ruling-class will only concede the most radical of terms to society when it is at its most vulnerable. This usually occurs during periods of degradation and contraction, as the state is overwhelmed with the duties imposed on it to keep order while guarding against any sudden groundswell of anti-establishment sentiment. It is then that the capitalist appears to have a 'change of heart,' conceding some of the most precious privileges and liberties when all other forms of repression have failed. Up against the stiff resistance of the population, the ruling-class has in such historical moments withdrawn without fully relinquishing its hold over the institutional foundations of the state, retreating in the hopes that it may gradually reassert itself in fields of public policy and discourse. Eventually it may hope to dilute the movement, reigning it in to the point of irrelevancy. Thus popular upsurges of workers' sentiments contain the embryonic foundations of a new system of organization without wholly realizing it. Reforms can, in relation to their historical and material contexts, provide the means through which public opinion may be turned leftward - but they can't in any real way provide significant forms of relief for the working-class. Eventually the ruling-class will right itself and it will, through the state, attack the 'gains' made by the proletariat until they are nonexistent.

Thus the Chilean revolution of 1971-73 ended in a coup d'état; the Portuguese uprisings of 1974-75 resulted in a gradual reassertion of bourgeois oversight over the means of production and state governance; the German people's revolts after WWI saw the initial collapse and resurgence of an aggressive ruling-class that looked to the right to sustain it; the Arab Spring began with a rise in social forms of organization, militancy, and international support, yet now struggles against a concerted effort by the global elite to reestablish control over the movement; Occupy Wall Street, Quebec's student strike, and the deepening pushback in Greece and the Eurozone against austerity all signaled (and continue to show) that reformism goes but two ways: 1) against a brick wall of state resistance, intimidation, and repression, or 2) initial success, followed by a slew of attacks and rollbacks that render any gains useless. Your friend's/acquaintance's argument ultimately folds beneath the weight of its idealism and lack of evidence. Electoral strategies as a sole means of 'progressive development' (whatever that means) are a dead end as far as a historical-material analysis goes. He or she appears to have failed to factor in the conditions in which these reforms were made. Some questions would be: when did these reforms happen? By what forms or means were they fought for? What was the condition of the state and the ruling financial class at the time of their passage? Where are these reforms now? Have they held up, and if so how have they benefited their target audience(s)? If not, how come? What factors contributed to their dilution and/or demise? These are important questions to ask. Reforms can point to the political direction of the working-class and serve as an indicator of where it's at organizationally*, but they cannot lift the people beyond the material boundaries of their exploitation - nor can they redefine the terms of society's collective standing in any serious or meaningful way.

* Greece is a notable example. Syriza has come out on top in recent polls, indicating a general trajectory towards the left by the Greek working-class. Syriza itself has been quick to assure international markets and the troika that it only seeks to renegotiate the terms laid out by Germany and the IMF for austerity, not to abandon the measures themselves. Alexis Tsipras, a leader of the organization, has met with Francois Hollande of the French Socialist Party (PS), as well as several pseudo-leftist groups throughout Europe. He most recently held talks with the Greek Defense Ministry and army high command, in what can only be interpreted as a move to assuage any fears or doubts about Syriza's intentions. Syriza's popularity by no means indicates that revolution is just around the corner; rather, it highlights the general atmosphere permeating Greek social tensions, bringing the dissatisfaction of the working-class once again to the forefront while retaining an ever evolving political consciousness that may potentially result in an all-out confrontation that moves beyond faith in the electoral.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To add to Le Socialiste's excellent post, i'd add the following: successful reforms are a symptom of a well-organised, militant, labour/workers' movement. But as has been noted, reforms are neither an ends nor a means; they are important in real terms because they make the lives of the working class that little bit better, and in some cases reforms can be crucial (i'm thinking of the franchise in particular). However, reforms are not an end in themselves (unless you're a reformist) and are not a means, they will not lead to Socialism, no matter what certain people tell you!

However, in observing political upheaval and revolutions, it seems to me that gaining significant reforms - especially political reforms - can give the workers' movement a sense of confidence and thus consciousness. It can show them that by acting together (e.g. as a class, not as a nation, or ethnic group, or religion or whatever) they can make things better for themselves and for society at large.

It's difficult to know whether worker movement organisation comes out of class consciousness, or whether class consciousness is (partly) a by-product of worker movement organisation. Cause or effect? Probably a bit of both, it's a fluid process. What is key is to differentiate between the pre-existing left, and the working class at large. It is the latter's organisation that is important.

[wsg1991]

Thus the Chilean revolution of 1971-73 ended in a coup d'état; the Portuguese uprisings of 1974-75 resulted in a gradual reassertion of bourgeois oversight over the means of production and state governance; the German people's revolts after WWI saw the initial collapse and resurgence of an aggressive ruling-class that looked to the right to sustain it; the Arab Spring began with a rise in social forms of organization, militancy, and international support, yet now struggles against a concerted effort by the global elite to reestablish control over the movement;
.

i don't think that local bourgeois In Chile could done the coup d'etat without foreign help ( CIA , USA ) Kissinger words ' make the Chilean economy to scream , the same applies in arab 'spring' , there was a major defeat to local ruling class , it would go nicely , but those revolution having difficulties against global elite , Muslim brotherhood in Tunisia for example had no initial local bourgeois support nor mass support , it couldn't do much without USA , and Qatar support
making a smaller population faces unequal larger Elite class

also worth mentioning the importance of loyal military in any Reformist attempt ( specially in third world )

[Rowan Duffy]

However, reforms are not an end in themselves (unless you're a reformist) and are not a means, they will not lead to Socialism, no matter what certain people tell you!

Obviously reforms are not an end in themselves, but something which assists in getting socialism, does lead to socialism by definition. Some reforms are much better at clearing the way than others. Reforms such as the Meidner plan were so dangerous that the bourgeois had to do back-flips in order to take it off the agenda. That sort of reform really could have put the means of production in the hands of the working class.



Progressive reforms, while not ideal, are of some importance. Their significance is twofold: to serve as a rallying point from which further actions may be formulated and acted out (many of which lead away from the drudgery and defeatism so prevalent in electoral politics), while serving as a barometer of public opinion.

This ignores the capacity of reforms to potentiate or clear the way for social movements.


Reformists seek to renegotiate the terms of exploitation, not abolish it. They're typically never even aware that that's all they are doing. The futility of reformism doesn't signal the left's refusal to work within its boundaries; it merely entails a different form of organization that's ultimately necessary in order to mobilize beyond the defensiveness of electoral strategies.

That all reforms renegotiate the terms of exploitation but do not abolish them is merely an assertion. Would a Meidner plan merely renegotiate the terms of exploitation? What about a law which entitled all workers to the full value of their labour? This explanation is too simplistic.

Ironically, the above characterisation of reforms has lead the left to repeatedly engage in totally incoherent reformism. Since reforms are deemed as purely subjective barometers, any old reform is as good as the next. If the public are into a particular reform, no matter how idiotic (National Left Keynesianism for Scotland?) The SWP probably exemplify this tendency better than any other single group, but they are by no means the only that fall into it. The Workers Solidarity Movement of which I was a member was similarly incoherent in our vacillations on the question of reform - being at once unable to ignore it, but totally unable to theorise which reforms were better since they were viewed as entirely irrelevant.

Realising that not all reforms are identical, and some will actually be barriers to further progress, and some will be enablers, puts us on a much firmer footing for progress. This is especially important in our current period which is not only not a revolutionary period, but is not even a pre-revolutionary period.




Up against the stiff resistance of the population, the ruling-class has in such historical moments withdrawn without fully relinquishing its hold over the institutional foundations of the state, retreating in the hopes that it may gradually reassert itself in fields of public policy and discourse. Eventually it may hope to dilute the movement, reigning it in to the point of irrelevancy. Thus popular upsurges of workers' sentiments contain the embryonic foundations of a new system of organization without wholly realizing it. Reforms can, in relation to their historical and material contexts, provide the means through which public opinion may be turned leftward - but they can't in any real way provide significant forms of relief for the working-class. Eventually the ruling-class will right itself and it will, through the state, attack the 'gains' made by the proletariat until they are nonexistent.

This narrative presupposes that we can simply push through to revolution. The fact of the matter is that if we are only in a position to win concessions and only incompletely we are unlikely to be able to push through to revolution. The balance of forces is entirely missing from the equation.



Thus the Chilean revolution of 1971-73 ended in a coup d'état;


A classic example were no concrete alternative is proposed. How could the Chilean working class have defeated a military that sided with reaction simply by taking a less reformist approach? Unless some sort of actual answer to the appropriate actions given the balance of forces in Chile at the time is given, I think we can safely ignore such Cliffite theories (he certainly didn't propose a viable alternative). Bolsheviks pushing Cliffite theories would do well to go back an assess the conditions which allowed a complete collapse of military authority in Russia before proposing to replicate the experience in totally inappropriate conditions. Let us not make a cargo-cult theory out of revolution.



* Greece is a notable example. Syriza has come out on top in recent polls, indicating a general trajectory towards the left by the Greek working-class. Syriza itself has been quick to assure international markets and the troika that it only seeks to renegotiate the terms laid out by Germany and the IMF for austerity, not to abandon the measures themselves. Alexis Tsipras, a leader of the organization, has met with Francois Hollande of the French Socialist Party (PS), as well as several pseudo-leftist groups throughout Europe. He most recently held talks with the Greek Defense Ministry and army high command, in what can only be interpreted as a move to assuage any fears or doubts about Syriza's intentions. Syriza's popularity by no means indicates that revolution is just around the corner; rather, it highlights the general atmosphere permeating Greek social tensions, bringing the dissatisfaction of the working-class once again to the forefront while retaining an ever evolving political consciousness that may potentially result in an all-out confrontation that moves beyond faith in the electoral.

SYRIZA's very gentle approach is appropriate to the precarious situation in which Greece finds itself. A success by the left that ends in economic collapse would be victory so pyrrhic that it could cripple the left for a long time, and not just in Greece. Caution is an advisable principle when dealing with dangerous conditions!

The situation in Greece should be leveraged, as SYRIZA is attempting to do, to get a broader left movement in Europe. The strategy of hoping contagion keeps them on the ship is a sensible one. We need a broad European left movement, not a small, weak, and overly radical sectional movement that will fail with immensely high probability.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I can see why people are fearful of revolution instead of gradual reforms within the existing system (capitalism has used plenty of propoganda to make any radical alternative seem far too risky).
One of the main reasons I've become set against the current electoral process is not just the issue of reforms within the system vs revolution but also the idea that political parties serve their own interests before that of their supporters / their class. They may push for certain reforms that benefit their class and supporters, but more and more it's about drawing as much support and votes as possible and getting as much financial support as possible from lobbyists / special interest groups.
The fight for the centre has diluted and degenerated elections into straight forward popularity contests with minimal support / particiaption from the electorate and no more radical program that making little tweeks to the existing capitalist model that will be over-turned when the next lot get in.
So yeah, spoiled ballot come 2015 methinks.

[Rowan Duffy]

The fight for the centre has diluted and degenerated elections into straight forward popularity contests with minimal support / particiaption from the electorate and no more radical program that making little tweeks to the existing capitalist model that will be over-turned when the next lot get in.

The fight for the centre is the fight for popularity. No strategy can win without being popular, however being popular is clearly not enough. You can capture the centre by drifting right, or you can capture the centre by convincing the public to the left. The later is very hard, which is why political parties tend to drift right - however, there is simply no way around convincing the public. It has to be done.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Obviously reforms are not an end in themselves, but something which assists in getting socialism, does lead to socialism by definition. Some reforms are much better at clearing the way than others. Reforms such as the Meidner plan were so dangerous that the bourgeois had to do back-flips in order to take it off the agenda. That sort of reform really could have put the means of production in the hands of the working class.

That, and tax-to-nationalize, but then the question deals with the divide of real reforms vs. transitional measures.


That all reforms renegotiate the terms of exploitation but do not abolish them is merely an assertion. Would a Meidner plan merely renegotiate the terms of exploitation? What about a law which entitled all workers to the full value of their labour? This explanation is too simplistic.

And while we're at it for the other posters, how about zero unemployment in consumer services via public employer-of-last-resort, too?


Ironically, the above characterisation of reforms has lead the left to repeatedly engage in totally incoherent reformism. Since reforms are deemed as purely subjective barometers, any old reform is as good as the next. If the public are into a particular reform, no matter how idiotic (National Left Keynesianism for Scotland?) The SWP probably exemplify this tendency better than any other single group, but they are by no means the only that fall into it. The Workers Solidarity Movement of which I was a member was similarly incoherent in our vacillations on the question of reform - being at once unable to ignore it, but totally unable to theorise which reforms were better since they were viewed as entirely irrelevant.

The problem with such incoherent "reformism," comrade, is that real reforms aren't pressed forward. Economistic struggles /= reforms, because reforms are in the first place political.


Realising that not all reforms are identical, and some will actually be barriers to further progress, and some will be enablers, puts us on a much firmer footing for progress. This is especially important in our current period which is not only not a revolutionary period, but is not even a pre-revolutionary period.

Huh?

Any period which isn't revolutionary is by definition pre-revolutionary, no?


SYRIZA's very gentle approach is appropriate to the precarious situation in which Greece finds itself. A success by the left that ends in economic collapse would be victory so pyrrhic that it could cripple the left for a long time, and not just in Greece. Caution is an advisable principle when dealing with dangerous conditions!

The situation in Greece should be leveraged, as SYRIZA is attempting to do, to get a broader left movement in Europe. The strategy of hoping contagion keeps them on the ship is a sensible one. We need a broad European left movement, not a small, weak, and overly radical sectional movement that will fail with immensely high probability.

Did you read my post about the imperative for SYRIZA to combine Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Iceland re. policymaking?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I can see why people are fearful of revolution instead of gradual reforms within the existing system (capitalism has used plenty of propoganda to make any radical alternative seem far too risky).
One of the main reasons I've become set against the current electoral process is not just the issue of reforms within the system vs revolution but also the idea that political parties serve their own interests before that of their supporters / their class. They may push for certain reforms that benefit their class and supporters, but more and more it's about drawing as much support and votes as possible and getting as much financial support as possible from lobbyists / special interest groups.
The fight for the centre has diluted and degenerated elections into straight forward popularity contests with minimal support / particiaption from the electorate and no more radical program that making little tweeks to the existing capitalist model that will be over-turned when the next lot get in.
So yeah, spoiled ballot come 2015 methinks.

Well, at least you're for political action with your last remark, comrade, though you should agitate for and try to organize spoilage efforts. :)

Stay-at-home abstention is not the way to go.

[Robocommie]

I keep running into a torrent of liberal reformism - the arguments never stop. They seem completely unable to think outside of the conventional wisdom that only voting will change things, and not voting will guarantee nothing will change.

The argument I'm running into right now is that the Tea Party managed to make the changes it did and make the progress it did because it nominated candidates and then voted for those candidates. The argument from these liberals is that to see progressive change, we should be nominating our own candidates.

Any good counter-arguments against that? I simply feel compelled to attempt to radicalize these folks.

[Le Socialiste]

I keep running into a torrent of liberal reformism - the arguments never stop. They seem completely unable to think outside of the conventional wisdom that only voting will change things, and not voting will guarantee nothing will change.

The argument I'm running into right now is that the Tea Party managed to make the changes it did and make the progress it did because it nominated candidates and then voted for those candidates. The argument from these liberals is that to see progressive change, we should be nominating our own candidates.

Any good counter-arguments against that? I simply feel compelled to attempt to radicalize these folks.

Where is the Tea Party now? Rendered irrelevant by their own candidates, who were more or less financed by special monied interests (individuals like the Koch brothers). The point is that a confluence of events built that particular movement up, whereupon it quickly diminished in clout and influence. Its rise is a direct representation of how and why the ruling-class manipulates material circumstances to shape the interior debate about single issues and policy; in times of crisis these people will turn to some of the most disaffected and reactionary elements of class society, applying pressure on divisions already present in order to consolidate its position.

Historically the right has been employed by capital in such times so that it may head off or turn back any tide that potentially threatens its entrenched interests. This partially explains why the Tea Party rose to prominence so quickly, including why it garnered so much media attention. The left has never been in this position because it is diametrically opposed to the very foundations of private capital and the terms it perpetuates. This presupposes the idea that liberals constitute the 'left' however (which they don't). The reality is liberals have often served in roles similar to their more conservative counterparts - the difference lies in the fact that they're more willing (albeit still hesitant) to enter into movements that question the very system they insist on reforming.

A purely electoral strategy that focuses on reform campaigns serves only to internalize the material dynamics that are already in place, legitimizing the consolidation of power within institutions set up and run by the very interests that are hostile to any attempts at 'progressive' reform. As noted in an earlier post, the political and financial elite will not even consider granting the people their most radical demands unless the former's position is being directly threatened. Reforms are taken up by them when their existence as a class is in question and/or if a reform's passage can be potentially profitable. The most basic argument to be made is this: capitalism's sole pursuit is profit. It can only realize the profitability of its commodities and services through the subjugation of labor to its needs; only through this form of exploitation can capital be built up and accumulated. Capital's representatives have only ever responded to pressure from the working-class when entire communities and industries organized around a common goal and entered into struggle for it.

I think your response should go beyond the question of reformism by highlighting the contradictions inherent in it; that is, trying to shape a system that is incapable of meeting the most basic needs of its people. Reforms have their place, but their value is more strategic than anything else. In the end, they are little else than superficial remedies to an incurable contagion.

[Prometeo liberado]

Unfortunately in the U.S. we would have to fight to first fix the electoral system in order to participate in it. The electoral college, fighting for proportional representation, overturning prop 14, voter I.D.'s blah, federally funded campaigns, blah, blah and so on...
We have to fight just to try and and fight, with no guarantee that the capitalist will not re-write the rules in the meantime. This isn't Europe, and we are not as class conscious as most parts of the world. This is the cradle of the beast and it won't tolerate being challenged on its own turf. Of course we fight a two pronged offense, but the wins we do get seem to be manipulated, reversed or watered down as soon as we achieve them.

[ckaihatsu]

The argument from these liberals is that to see progressive change, we should be nominating our own candidates.

Any good counter-arguments against that? I simply feel compelled to attempt to radicalize these folks.


Put them on the back-foot by asking them to provide one historical *example* of when this was effective on a permanent basis (there is none). They can use rhetoric to make it *seem* like they're giving you a solid argument, but the right follow-up questions will strip it away to expose the underlying bullshit -- they have no grounds for what they argue for.





Historically the right has been employed by capital in such times so that it may head off or turn back any tide that potentially threatens its entrenched interests. This partially explains why the Tea Party rose to prominence so quickly, including why it garnered so much media attention.


So this would be a right-wing *attempt* at an electoral coup, whereas Bush 2000 was a *successful* electoral coup....





A purely electoral strategy that focuses on reform campaigns serves only to internalize the material dynamics that are already in place, legitimizing the consolidation of power within institutions set up and run by the very interests that are hostile to any attempts at 'progressive' reform.


This is a theoretical problematic for liberals -- anyone who plays by the rules of the game *cannot*, by definition, *overthrow* the game from within. It must be done from without. Either someone is *tolerant* of the status quo or else they must explicitly *distance* themselves from it. There's no "in-between".





Reforms are taken up by them when their existence as a class is in question and/or if a reform's passage can be potentially profitable.


(More commonly known as 'marketing'.)(grin)