Revisionism and Voting

[Culicarius]

Hey all - so I have some thoughts and questions that I want to toss out there to better understand revisionism and the importance (or lack thereof) of voting.

First, on revisionism - If I understand revisionism properly, revisionist beliefs are the ones that say that we can reach a post-capitalist society by reforms to the government, legislation, etc. Basically arguing that a revolution is not needed and such a global society could be reached one day by changing laws and the government over time. There's also some tampering with Marxist beliefs, either saying that Marx (or any other writer/point of argument) is wrong and heavily revising that aspect of Marxism. Am I right, or wrong? I just want to understand what people mean when they say revisionism and the harsh backlash it often gets.




Another thing I've seen both on this board and from other leftists I've seen is in regards to voting. I believe it may tie into revisionism but many seem either apathetic or hostile towards voting. I can understand where they come from - I disagree with revisionism (if I understand it right) so I don't think workers will ever cease to be exploited so long as capitalism is around, and I think some violent revolution will need to take hold to other throw the bourgeois.

But I still think there's some importance. Yeah, imperialism isn't going to go away. Exploitation of workers and other countries isn't going away. But there are still social issues that I think can be tackled. When I think of this, I mostly think of the quality of life for people could be improved and, ideally, open up the possibility of changing peoples' mindsets to see the flaws of capitalism. We have issues like gay marriage not being legal, LGBT+ are significantly higher in homelessness rates, wage gaps between white men and everyone else, lack of proper healthcare, free and accessible education, etc.

From my perspective, these are things we can improve with the goal of lessening burden and stress on people. I figure the more free time they have, the more they're able to have agency and explore education or immerse themselves in other cultures, the greater the chance of them adopting revolutionary beliefs are. If I were to cast a vote, I would rather it go towards a politician who would support cheaper education over one who wants to cut food stamps, or one who acknowledges transphobia as an issue in our society as opposed to one who thinks they're satan's creations. Not because I think we just need to introduce a few laws here and there and then we're done, but because I think it would provide the opportunity and leisurely time to be able to read books and analyze the world and realize where injustices lay.

To conclude - I don't see an issue in being a revolutionary and recognizing we can make the current systems not as terrible as they currently are. Not as the end goal, but as a stepping stone to ultimately acquire more support.

And admittedly as someone who's neither cisgender nor straight, it's something that affects me personally and I kind of side-eye anyone saying they flat don't bother voting or trying to invoke positive changes to our cultural beliefs.

[AidanChrist]

An alternative position is to vote into power the worst hardline right leaders we can, so that the workers are pushed to the breaking point and finally revolt. If we keep utilizing reformist tactics, many workers will simply accept that the system could be better or could be worse and do nothing to change it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So let me tell you a little story.

Here in Croatia, the ruling social-democrats got into power, in part, by making a lot of noise about gay rights. In power, they did precisely nothing for gay people. When a coalition of reactionary organisations started a referendum to define marriage as between "one man and one woman", the social-demonrats did everything in their power to ensure its passage.

Meanwhile, the discrimination protections that do exist were passed by the previous conservative government (headed by the party of the former Croatian dictator, a man not know for liberal opinions about anything, unless you count the liberal use of explosives and massacres), in response to an actual street-level movement, including the first gay pride marches etc.

Reforms are nice. But reforms are not won by voting for the "good" bourgeois politicians - this is the perspective of the left tails of the Democrat party in the US, and its success is obvious - but by street-level militancy, particularly workers' militancy.

[Cumulus]

If the proletariat will not vote for socialism, then can it be expected to be glad when it arrives? Socialism must be built by the hand of the people. If socialism is thrust upon the proletariat, it will reject it. When this happens, the so called dictatorship of the proletariat must must repress the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie. This creates a ruling class that must oppress the people in its attempt to construct socialism. This is the point of failure which has brought about the failure of previous socialist states. A socialist state that lacks democracy will incite resentment among the people not only of the rulers, but of socialism itself. This is exactly why socialism is so widely feared today - tyrannical dictatorships of a small ruling class in a manner eerily similar to capitalism. Therefore, a socialist government must be voted in. If there is no democracy in place, then the socialist movement must have the support of the proletariat.

[Puzzled Left]

An alternative position is to vote into power the worst hardline right leaders we can, so that the workers are pushed to the breaking point and finally revolt. If we keep utilizing reformist tactics, many workers will simply accept that the system could be better or could be worse and do nothing to change it.
Like how German workers were pushed to revolt when the Nazis were voted to power?

[Culicarius]

Hm. So you'd argue that change in laws don't matter so much with what party is in power but how successful any protests (violent or non-violent) are?

I could get with that. It makes more sense to me than people who just vote for this politician or that party and don't do anything beyond that.

[Rudolf]

You can't vote in laws that give some relief to the working class. It just doesn't work like that. The state, and those who administer it, is under constant structural pressure to maximise the position of capital in relation to labour. Even in western democracies gains for the working class don't originate in parliaments there are forced upon them from without. And even their enactment into law is no guarantee of their security. Just as employers always try to nullify every concession they have made to labour as soon as an opportunity arises, as soon as any weakness is observed in the workers' organisations so too governments are inclined to always restrict or revoke any rights or freedoms that have been achieved if they imagine there will be no resistance. We can see this phenomenon playing out now for example in the UK with unprecedented attacks on social security, the NHS etc.



What Xhar-Xhar Binks pointed out in their post is the key. Improvements in our lot come are a result of militancy and mass movements. It is our job as revolutionaries to help build movements and to always push them towards expansion, increased militancy and towards developing revolutionary praxis.



edit:

as for revisionism, don't take my word for it as not being a marxist i may be mistaken, but as far as i'm aware it is a charge against those that abandon the core aspects of Marxism such as class struggle being central to society, Marx's analysis of the commodity and what ensues from its unravelling, that the working class can't be emancipated via changes in the law and thus requires a change of material conditions etc. It's not applied to any revisions for contemporary capitalism that holds to these basics. So if for example one were to adapt Marx's analysis as it relates to money but accounting for the money commodity not currently being backed by gold you're not revisionist even though it may be a revision.

[Cumulus]

Even if the government can't do much to ease the burden of the proletariat, having someone with common interests in power would be beneficial, no? I believe that everyone should participate in currently existing democracies to further the cause as much as it can be furthered without radical change. One must walk before one can run.

[Rudolf]

Even if the government can't do much to ease the burden of the proletariat, having someone with common interests in power would be beneficial, no?



what use would it serve other than to recuperate any struggles into votes for this or that party as opposed to taking direct action? How can someone have the same structural interests as the proletariat when they administer a social structure that must maximise the position of capital in relation to labour?

What happens when this person is confronted with major capitalists threatening capital flight? They'll do what they must: attack the working class.

[Ismail]

If the proletariat will not vote for socialism, then can it be expected to be glad when it arrives? Socialism must be built by the hand of the people. If socialism is thrust upon the proletariat, it will reject it. When this happens, the so called dictatorship of the proletariat must must repress the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie. This creates a ruling class that must oppress the people in its attempt to construct socialism. This is the point of failure which has brought about the failure of previous socialist states.This is asinine. The proletariat in Russia decided what it wanted not by participating in bourgeois elections but by establishing soviets and wanting these soviets to take power. When the Menshevik and SR leaderships of said soviets opposed this position and called for support to the Provisional Government, the workers responded by moving en masse towards the Bolsheviks. By the time the Constituent Assembly came into existence the workers did not care to defend it. It refused to recognize soviet power at its first sitting and so it was dissolved by that same power.

Likewise in other countries workers indicated their support for socialism not through bourgeois elections, but through calls for the socialization of factories, engaging in strikes, etc.

The only exceptions are cases in which such workers were told to attain their goal by voting for a "parliamentary road" to socialism, but the most famous example of this happening (Chile) showed just how disastrous it is to foster reformist illusions among the working-class.

[Cumulus]

This is asinine. The proletariat in Russia decided what it wanted not by participating in bourgeois elections but by establishing soviets and wanting these soviets to take power. When the Menshevik and SR leaderships of said soviets opposed this position and called for support to the Provisional Government, the workers responded by moving en masse towards the Bolsheviks. By the time the Constituent Assembly came into existence the workers did not care to defend it. It refused to recognize soviet power at its first sitting and so it was dissolved by that same power.

Likewise in other countries workers indicated their support for socialism not through bourgeois elections, but through calls for the socialization of factories, engaging in strikes, etc.

The only exceptions are cases in which such workers were told to attain their goal by voting for a "parliamentary road" to socialism, but the most famous example of this happening (Chile) showed just how disastrous it is to foster reformist illusions among the working-class.
The socialist government might need to use means other than an election to come to power, but if it doesn't have the support if the proletariat, it is doomed. The socialists should come to power democratically if such a thing is possible. Even if they won't be able to do anything with that position, they should seek the approval of the proletariat before acting on its behalf.

[Ismail]

The socialist government might need to use means other than an election to come to power, but if it doesn't have the support if the proletariat, it is doomed.Well yes, but you said "This is the point of failure which has brought about the failure of previous socialist states." Which states are those? Obviously not Soviet Russia. Doesn't really apply to Eastern Europe since in all the countries except Romania I can cite examples of legit working-class demands in 1944-46 for the socialization of factories and the like. The Communists in China, Vietnam and Korea were also popular since they had decades of both work among workers and prestige gained during armed struggles against corrupt governments (China) or foreign occupation (Korea and Vietnam.) Many states had coalition governments set up as well.

Of course you could say that the communists lost popularity later, but as far as the beginning went I'm quite sure that the concept of socialism wasn't "thrust upon" the workers.


The socialists should come to power democratically if such a thing is possible.As Engels pointed out as early as 1847, "It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it... But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words."


Even if they won't be able to do anything with that position, they should seek the approval of the proletariat before acting on its behalf.But what constitutes approval? A bourgeois election where every effort is make to tilt the campaign in favor of those who actually hold state power, who have both the money and the means (the press, the police, control over who counts the votes, etc.) to campaign freely and endlessly slander their opponents? If Communists were in a serious position to win such elections by an overwhelming amount (remember that Allende's electoral alliance did not poll that much more than his avowedly capitalist opponents, who therefore expected his government to "compromise" with them more than he actually did) then the bourgeoisie would resort to military rule or otherwise annul the election anyway, in which case a working-class that dedicated itself solely to parliamentary methods would be completely vulnerable.

Personally I'd take spontaneous working-class organs (such as the soviets) as a far stronger indication, because they are examples of the workers shedding reformist illusions and actually arguing among themselves and with the bourgeoisie over who should rule: the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, or "the proletariat" via the bourgeois state apparatus through a social-democratic compromise with capital?

[Comrade Jacob]

Social democracy is a snake in the grass. Gives the people enough to not revolt and so keeping capitalism breathing.
Voting can never get far.

[Cumulus]

Social democracy is a snake in the grass. Gives the people enough to not revolt and so keeping capitalism breathing.
Voting can never get far.
If you think that I am advocating Nordic socialism, you are mistaken.

Also, refusing to vote because it will not take you straight to the finish line is akin to beggar turning down a dollar because he wanted ten. It is looking a gift horse in the mouth and does nothing to further the cause of the proletariat.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If the proletariat will not vote for socialism, then can it be expected to be glad when it arrives?

This doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "if Geoff won't hit his head against the wall, then can he be expected to be glad when he gets a raise?". Sure he can. Voting measures, not the class consciousness of the workers, but the number of workers who still tail bourgeois formations, and the proletariat is not obliged to waste its time and energy voting because you still have reformist illusions.


Even if the government can't do much to ease the burden of the proletariat, having someone with common interests in power would be beneficial, no?

A communist that has common interest with one of the executives of the bourgeois state is a poor communist. For example, there are many "leftists", including supposed "communists", who proclaim commonality of interest with the bourgeois government of Greece as it detains immigrants in concentration camps and gives generous salaries to the fascist police. This tells us more about these supposed "leftists" than it tells us about the Greek state and the popular front that forms the government there.

[Ismail]

Also, refusing to vote because it will not take you straight to the finish line is akin to beggar turning down a dollar because he wanted ten. It is looking a gift horse in the mouth and does nothing to further the cause of the proletariat.Communists can participate in elections under certain circumstances. The Bolsheviks certainly did in the case of the blatantly rigged Tsarist Duma (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/bad0.htm), not because they were under any illusions that they could effect change through it (nobody could), but because it gave them a prominent venue to denounce the policies of the government and to force its ministers to render account to and be questioned by the Duma (i.e. the working-class deputies of it) on certain issues relating to corruption, treatment of striking workers, etc. Such participation is entirely legitimate and helps to demonstrate what classes the state in question really serves. The Bolshevik Party also did not subordinate itself to its deputies (unlike the SPD which mutated into a "respectable" political party sharing power with the bourgeoisie), but correctly viewed participation in the Duma as just one of many methods (both open and underground) to rally workers.

Thinking that you can bring about socialism through parliamentary reform is something else entirely. Thinking that socialism is "thrust upon" workers if they don't have a bunch of representatives in the bourgeois state machine beforehand is silly.

[Cumulus]

Communists can participate in elections under certain circumstances. The Bolsheviks certainly did in the case of the blatantly rigged Tsarist Duma (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/bad0.htm), not because they were under any illusions that they could effect change through it (nobody could), but because it gave them a prominent venue to denounce the policies of the government and to force its ministers to render account to and be questioned by the Duma (i.e. the working-class deputies of it) on certain issues relating to corruption, treatment of striking workers, etc. Such participation is entirely legitimate.

Thinking that you can bring about socialism through parliamentary reform is something else entirely. Thinking that socialism is "thrust upon" workers if they don't have a bunch of representatives in the bourgeois state machine beforehand is silly.

I'm not saying that the socialists will be elected and then everything will magically fall into place. I understand that there will be obstacles. All I'm saying is that we should ride the reform train until we reach the last station. The last station won't be socialism, but it will be much closer. Reform will not shut up the workers and make them complicit with capitalism, but will give them a small taste of socialism. When the bourgeoisie has hit its limit and reform has reached a dead end, the class conscious proletariat will be in a much better place to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat than they were previously.

[Ismail]

I'm not saying that the socialists will be elected and then everything will magically fall into place. I understand that there will be obstacles. All I'm saying is that we should ride the reform train until we reach the last station. The last station won't be socialism, but it will be much closer.Except the whole point of reformism is to disarm workers ideologically, to tell them that they can always simply appeal to the bourgeois state to make their lot in life "better." And how else would this "betterment" come about in your model (presumably a parliamentary "socialist" party oriented from the first day towards winning seats) except through coalitions with bourgeois parties which would begin to call on these "socialists" (if they ever actually gained enough popularity) to assume cabinet positions so that they could share in the blame for recessions and austerity measures, etc.?


Reform will not shut up the workers and make them complicit with capitalism, but will give them a small taste of socialism. When the bourgeoisie has hit its limit and reform has reached a dead end, the class conscious proletariat will be in a much better place to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat than they were previously.I don't see how it will "give them a small taste of socialism," and the only way such reforms would ensure that the "class conscious proletariat will be in a much better place to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat" is if they were reforms of a democratic character, e.g. if trade unions or progressive press were outlawed, then working-class deputies could try securing their legalization (at least for a time), but I doubt that's what you're thinking of.

[Rafiq]

Reforms that are consequential of ruling class fear of revolution are always beneficial, but these can only ever be meaningfully wrought out in a beneficial way through a militant and radical movement. Reformism, conversely, is the masturbatory and servile celebration of these reforms as an ends-in-themselves. The reformists look at the impact of reforms, what evils they had done away with and come to the conclusion that all of them can. What they ignore is that it took the blood of radicals, or a trembling ruling class to concede them - not reformists. And that in one way or another, these reforms either become obsolete eventually, or perverted by capital to serve as an even more effective organ of repression.

[Cumulus]

Except the whole point of reformism is to disarm workers ideologically, to tell them that they can always simply appeal to the bourgeois state to make their lot in life "better." And how else would this "betterment" come about in your model (presumably a parliamentary "socialist" party oriented from the first day towards winning seats) except through coalitions with bourgeois parties which would begin to call on these "socialists" (if they ever actually gained enough popularity) to assume cabinet positions so that they could share in the blame for recessions and austerity measures, etc.?

I don't see how it will "give them a small taste of socialism," and the only way such reforms would ensure that the "class conscious proletariat will be in a much better place to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat" is if they were reforms of a democratic character, e.g. if trade unions or progressive press were outlawed, then working-class deputies could try securing their legalization (at least for a time), but I doubt that's what you're thinking of.
The "point" depends on the intention of the reformers. I am not suggesting that they make small, incremental changes while trying to appease the bourgeoisie. I am suggesting that they implement their entire agenda immediately. If there bourgeoisie fights back, it will be lacking popular support as well as governmental support. This will leave the conditions ripe for revolution. The point of these reforms is not to build socialism, but to stir the pot.

[Ismail]

I am not suggesting that they make small, incremental changes while trying to appease the bourgeoisie. I am suggesting that they implement their entire agenda immediately.Why would socialists focus on winning a majority of seats in a legislature just so they could demand its abolition along with the rest of the bourgeois state apparatus? How would the workers be adequately secured against the reprisals of such a state when they're being told to place their faith in securing a parliamentary majority within it as the road towards achieving socialism, rather than through revolution?


If there bourgeoisie fights back, it will be lacking popular support as well as governmental support.It may lack popular support, but it won't lack governmental support. The executive and the judiciary, not to mention the army and police, will remain in the hands of the bourgeoisie even if the legislature has a majority of socialists.


This will leave the conditions ripe for revolution. The point of these reforms is not to build socialism, but to stir the pot.I don't see how it's going to stir the pot by itself. "Socialists" are going to get elected on the false promise of being able to convince the state to abolish itself. Either that or you're going to argue that they'll have to "stir the pot" through a series of "transitional" demands, which inevitably means unprincipled coalitions with bourgeois parties and total conversion of an ostensibly revolutionary vanguard of the working-class into an association of parliamentarians.

If it's done as a propaganda measure, when independent working-class power already exists or is at least capable of being established at once, then I could understand. But that's not what you're suggesting. To you socialism is "thrust upon" the workers unless they get a parliamentary majority first, and that's just silly.

[AidanChrist]

But I still think there's some importance. Yeah, imperialism isn't going to go away. Exploitation of workers and other countries isn't going away.