Anti-reforms

[Narodnik]

Is there anyone who accepts the idea of anti-reforms? Not anti-reformism, but anti-reforms.

This view was first espoused by Nikolay Chernyshevsky who said "the worse the better", meanin that the worse the social conditions became for the working people, the more inclined they would be to launch a revolution.

The basic reasoning is that what should be destroyed should not be improved, and that all reforms are just breadcrums that the rich toss to the poor to pacify them, and that this pacification works- the better the conditions of the system, the more peole will support it.

[Ostrinski]

There is a leftist tendency called Impossibilism, which basically holds that the age of fighting for reforms that benefit the working class is over, and that instead the task of communists is to be agitating toward working class revolution and the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. The main organization that still adheres to this term and tradition is the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB).

There are also left communists and anarchists who feel the same way about the political struggle for reforms on behalf of communists, although their politics differ very sharply from those of the SPGB. I believe the DeLeonists, while calling for a mass party to take power electorally, also reject the necessity of struggling for reforms and state that the main priority should be in the first place the overthrow of capitalism. The DeLeonists are quite tiny, though.

There are many socialists that feel differently, however. Others feel that it is the duty of communists and class-conscious people to aid the proletariat politically in the struggle for reforms that could benefit the working class, to campaign for such reforms, defend and fight for the interests of the working class as well as oppressed peoples such as minorities, and other such measures.

So it isn't a matter of the attiude toward reforms themselves, it's a matter of the attitude and political approach that communists should have toward them.

[Rurkel]

SPGB and all that, however, is different from what the OP said - left intervention in order to deliberately make things worse for the potentially revolutionary class.

[Ostrinski]

I don't think anyone shares the sentiments that the OP discussed, or at least I haven't seen such a perspective expressed on this site before.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

No, this is utterly wrong.

Those who advocate the working class to starve, are not in the working class. It is like saying: "Prolet, you should not eat because if your kids die of starvation you will be more likely to revolt".

Every leftist should be for the improvement of the living standards of the working class. But always stating that reforming capital is no use for us, we must smash it.

[Thirsty Crow]

There is a leftist tendency called Impossibilism, which basically holds that the age of fighting for reforms that benefit the working class is over, and that instead the task of communists is to be agitating toward working class revolution and the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. The main organization that still adheres to this term and tradition is the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB). I find it hard to believe that SPGBers would actively oppose a reform which would benefit the working class, so I think that there is a fundamental difference here between what OP describes - which is really misguided - and the stance of the SPGB.


There are also left communists and anarchists who feel the same way about the political struggle for reforms on behalf of communists, although their politics differ very sharply from those of the SPGB. I believe the DeLeonists, while calling for a mass party to take power electorally, also reject the necessity of struggling for reforms and state that the main priority should be in the first place the overthrow of capitalism. The DeLeonists are quite tiny, though.


If by "political struggle" you mean running in elections in order to form a government which would institute a reform, then you're quite right. But in political struggle for reform there's shades of grey and in this sense your claim might be a bit misleading. For instance, it seems as if this:


There are many socialists that feel differently, however. Others feel that it is the duty of communists and class-conscious people to aid the proletariat politically in the struggle for reforms that could benefit the working class, to campaign for such reforms, defend and fight for the interests of the working class as well as oppressed peoples such as minorities, and other such measures.


...is completely alien to contemporary left communists. Which does not hold really, but this is a matter for another debate.

And I don't think that the size of DeLeonist formations has anything to do with the validity of their approach.



So it isn't a matter of the attiude toward reforms themselves, it's a matter of the attitude and political approach that communists should have toward them.
But OP framed the debate in precisely this way, an attitude toward reforms.

[ind_com]

No, this is utterly wrong.

Those who advocate the working class to starve, are not in the working class. It is like saying: "Prolet, you should not eat because if your kids die of starvation you will be more likely to revolt".

Every leftist should be for the improvement of the living standards of the working class. But always stating that reforming capital is no use for us, we must smash it.

This. Let's not confuse supporting reforms with reformism.

[Narodnik]

Thanks for the answers, but basically Ostrinski's "I don't think anyone shares the sentiments that the OP discussed, or at least I haven't seen such a perspective expressed on this site before." is the only sentence that adressed the question I asked.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

This. Let's not confuse supporting reforms with reformism.

What?

[Rurkel]

Reformism = believing that all problems in our society can be fixed with reforms/ that capitalism can be overthrown sorely by reforms.
Supporting a reform of some kind =/= reformism.

That's how I interpreted that phrase, at least.

[The Idler]

Pretty sure there are Trotskyists calling for a Labour vote and sometimes openly admitting the election of a Labour government is to disenchant and demoralise the working-class. Do third-worldists or those who argue the peasantry are the revolutionary class because of lower living conditions count?

As for impossibilists such as the SPGB, I may be unorthodox SPGB but found the reforms versus reformism distinction pretty weak. One of our first couple of issues of the Standard contained an article titled something Against Reforms.

Since 1911, when the Socialist Propaganda League split from the SPGB over this issue, the SPGB has made it clear that we will only actively propose socialism ourselves, but it does not mean we reject all reforms proposed by others just that they will never form part of our platform. Doesn't mean any elected delegate will vote against an existing motion before them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Propaganda_League

I've just posted about this in the Impossibilists (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1032) group. I think Socialist Studies know that we are not following W. Liebknect in "no trading, no compromise". R. Cumming however took their anti-reform at face value and was disappointed enough after two years of membership to write a critique in 2004. A longer version of which I have and will be uploading very soon.
The R. Cumming critiques (2004) of Socialist Studies (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=7256)

Just copied this over too as a result of this topic (also available on the Socialist Studies website)
Socialist Studies on Socialist Propaganda League (1911) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=7269)

Also have The Voice, newsletter of the Socialist Propaganda League and two of their leaflets if you would be interested in them?

[#FF0000]

Thanks for the answers, but basically Ostrinski's "I don't think anyone shares the sentiments that the OP discussed, or at least I haven't seen such a perspective expressed on this site before." is the only sentence that adressed the question I asked.

Yeah, the only people who subscribe to what you're talking about, at least in this day and age, tend to be people who are extremely new to radical politics.

At least in my experience.

[Manic Impressive]

Not even I am anti-reforms in the way the OP means it. You'd have to be a bit of a sociopath to intentionally want things to get worse.

However, I differ from most of this forum by realizing that reforms which have been passed are always the results of the needs of capital even if they coincidentally benefit workers. This can range anywhere from nationalization to civil rights to universal healthcare. We, as workers may benefit from these policies in minor ways but if they are not the results of the left's campaigns but purely down to the demands of the market. For this reason I do not advocate the implementation of reforms. I also see campaigning for reforms as a waste of time and serving the interests of the ruling class.

So sure I'll take advantage of anything the cappies want to give us. But I won't beg for it. I stand for one thing alone and that is the complete abolition of capitalism. I won't waste my time trying to make it work better.

Also my new favourite quote :p


At the same time, and quite apart from the general servitude involved in the wages system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch03.htm#c14