Debate with my reformist friend

[Questionable]

I had a debate with my friend over reformism and I was left with a few questions.

He was taking the stance that you didn't need a violent revolution for socialism since our Western governments were democratic. He said, for example, that the people of a country could all vote in their Communist Party, and then begin building communism that way. I explained to him that the state was the tool for the capitalists to manage themselves, not truly a democratic institution, and that the capitalists would probably ban communist factions if such a thing were to happen.

However, my friend, who was from Canada, claimed that his country was implementing more and more socialized policies, such as universal healthcare and a welfare safety net, that his theory that we could peacefully "evolve" into socialism was being proved true. I explained to him that those things only happened for two reasons; because the workers of his country demanded them, and because the capitalists could afford to let them have it. I explained that if Canada's economy were to suddenly go bad, socialized programs would be the first to get cut. My friend, who was still viewing the government as 100% democratic and not a capitalist tool, said that workers could just push more and more legislation through rather the capitalists liked it or not. To counter this, I used the term "brick wall" to describe how once it reached the point where capitalists were going to lose a large amount of profits or power to the workers' demand, they would simply not listen to them, and would use the military or police to break up any dissent.

My question is this; how do you comrades feel like I handled my friend's claims that capitalism could be reformed into socialism, and what are some books I can study that give a Marxist perspective on countries like Canada that have a large social safety net?

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg is a good short essay. EDIT : To your other question; you did well in your debate. Poke at him a bit and try to get him to prove his point. Which is impossible.

[campesino]

elections swing to the right, then the left, then the right then the left, reformist parties are very weak and always have their accomplishments being undone by right-wing parties. using elections as a means to exercise power is futile, temporary and leads to no structural changes needed for socialism.

[jookyle]

All reformism can do is make a current system a little nicer to live in but it doesn't not change the system. The system stays intact, reforms are just a way to buy off revolution, so to speak.

[ckaihatsu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_military_operations

[Towarzysz Leninski]

True, some reforms might be implemented and scored in the interest of the proletariat, but the point is that because the existing state is a bourgeois one, such reforms can easily be taken away and are wholly at the mercy of the bourgeoisie since the state's administration is their political expression as the ruling class.

Evidence of this is seen everyday in all countries when the democratic rights and piecemeal reforms achieved thus far are strong in theory and word but violated daily by the bourgeois state's policies, police, and actions.

Reformism, besides, had demonstrated its utter failure and inadequacy in history as the sole strategy and tactic of the toiling masses in the struggle for emancipation.

I would suggest to him the classic and great State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin which makes some great points, and Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution is good as well. A more comprehensive list could be formulated upon demand.

And keep up the debate! History is on your side!

[Lucretia]

I had a debate with my friend over reformism and I was left with a few questions.

He was taking the stance that you didn't need a violent revolution for socialism since our Western governments were democratic. He said, for example, that the people of a country could all vote in their Communist Party, and then begin building communism that way. I explained to him that the state was the tool for the capitalists to manage themselves, not truly a democratic institution, and that the capitalists would probably ban communist factions if such a thing were to happen.

However, my friend, who was from Canada, claimed that his country was implementing more and more socialized policies, such as universal healthcare and a welfare safety net, that his theory that we could peacefully "evolve" into socialism was being proved true. I explained to him that those things only happened for two reasons; because the workers of his country demanded them, and because the capitalists could afford to let them have it. I explained that if Canada's economy were to suddenly go bad, socialized programs would be the first to get cut. My friend, who was still viewing the government as 100% democratic and not a capitalist tool, said that workers could just push more and more legislation through rather the capitalists liked it or not. To counter this, I used the term "brick wall" to describe how once it reached the point where capitalists were going to lose a large amount of profits or power to the workers' demand, they would simply not listen to them, and would use the military or police to break up any dissent.

My question is this; how do you comrades feel like I handled my friend's claims that capitalism could be reformed into socialism, and what are some books I can study that give a Marxist perspective on countries like Canada that have a large social safety net?

So as an example of how reformable capitalism currently is, he brings up reforms from literally sixty or seventy years ago, back when capitalism was at its boom period following the second world war (days that have waved bye-bye to us long ago) and the one time it actually did have the breathing room to allow some reforms and government socialization of industries. Interesting to note how privatization has been the trend the past thirty years. Does your friend wonder why?

[wsg1991]

used the term "brick wall" to describe how once it reached the point where capitalists were going to lose a large amount of profits or power to the workers' demand, they would simply not listen to them, and would use the military or police to break up any dissent.


Healthcare is incredibly profitable business , Capitalist won't simply gave it away without some fierce fight which contradict with the lose large amount of profit argument .



don't worry they will try to get it back once they can , or when workers movement are at their weakest stat ,

[Raskolnikov]

Well saying the people could all vote Communist Party can not work - the state itself imprisons and destroys any obstacles in its ways. Use the fact that the FBI is arresting anti-war activists and created the NDAA. These two facts alone show that capitalist states do not 'intend' to destroy themselves.

But also let him put it into a model. Chile 1975 - the Communist Party wins the election. What happens? Operation Condor and a coup. That example alone defeats his argument. Even if the people vote Communist, and the state accepts this (the capitalists) then this does not mean that other capitalists from larger Empires will not intervene on you and destroy you.

For other stuff - simply ask him. So Canada has a safet Net - yes. But these are reforms pushed by the working class, which can fail at times or only pushed due to the proletariat force. Look at the Russian Empire - the Duma was created from the working classes struggle.

However this progress means turned against the working class as it was used both by the Czar and White Forces to try and get their way. (The Czar as a rubber stamp and the White Forces to be a 'Westernized' Russian in the sense of full-blown Capitalism)

[revhope]

Events themselves will prove that reformism is no solution for workers in the present economic crisis. This can be seen most clearly with the recent student demos in all places Canada where the Canadian government is not only using the police to smash the student opposition but also in the implementation of Bill78 which makes it a criminal offence to demonstrate without the permision of the police. The arrest of a whole host of student activists also highlights the central repressive role of the capitalist state be it Canadian or for that matter all capitalist states.


So while events themselves prove the Marxist argument of the role of the state there is a need to put forward an alternative strategy which aims at the development of the independent polical movement of the working class organised in a class based party of the working class.


An interesting report from the WSWS can be seen on their site regarding the events in Canada

[Peoples' War]

Use examples such as "back to work" legislation, the G 20, Quebec student protests, etc.

[Tim Cornelis]

I would have additionally emphasised self-emancipation of the working class which cannot be accomplished through parliament.

Maybe I would also have pointed out how in Indonesia the communist party was most popular in the mid 1960s, with the largest membership, and was likely going to win the elections. The result: a false flag coup by communists and the subsequent US-assisted massacre of 1,000,000 communists.

One could, of course, also point out to Salvador Allende and Chile.

This shows how far anti-communists may go, and have gone, to prevent a democratic reaching of power by communists and socialists.