Is Reformism Real?

[VCrakeV]

So, tonight, I'm disappointed. For a while, I've considered myself a reformist; I believe (on the fence now) that a society can go from Capitalism to Socialism to Communism via social reform rather than violent revolution. I have believed that participating in Democracy to bring in progressive parties is the right thing to do. So, I voted in the Canadian election, for the NDP. They're no where near a perfect party, but they have quite a socialist tendency. I don't think they got 10% of the seats. So, I was disappointed... But should I be?

Is reformism real? Can we reach Socialism, and the Communism, via Democracy? If so, where do we see this? If not, what does one do to challenge the system?

[Rafiq]

Through democracy, reforms can be fought for.

The bourgeoisie can be forced to make concessions. But it can only do so under the backdrop of safeguarding the reproduction of the conditions of production (in other words, to avoid a revolution). They do this for reasons that are beyond cynical. It is not just about "having things". The consciousness of the bourgeoisie is shaped by the conditions of production - everything that they are, their very identities - everything that makes them who they are is a result of this.

And it goes without saying that this applies not simply for the individual capitalists, but the functionaries of the bourgeois state - the leaders of its repressive, violent organs. Ultimately it boils down to this: Does bourgeois democracy take precedent over the interests of capital? Can the leaders of the bourgeois state be compelled to allow for the basis of society to be destroyed because they are democratic ideologues?

Owing to some democratic principle, would liberals allow for capitalism's destruction?

In fact, bourgeois democracy is already under attack, without a substantial threat of revolutionary politics entering the picture. To defend basic bourgeois-liberal democratic decency today would be a radical act.

[ComradeAllende]

Is reformism real? Can we reach Socialism, and the Communism, via Democracy? If so, where do we see this? If not, what does one do to challenge the system?

As a coherent way of understanding the world, no. Reformists put too much credibility into bourgeois institutions like parliaments and the courts, not realizing how indebted those institutions are to capitalism (or how enmeshed they are in bourgeois norms and values). To advance socialism through bourgeois institutions is like telling a dog to be a fish; you can try, and you can get very far, but eventually the "true" nature of the beast reasserts itself. In the case of capitalism, it would be the burden of taxation and the aggressive demands of the workers, which turn the capitalists against the government and provide the seeds for a reaction.

On a side note, violence does not necessarily preclude democracy, or vice versa. No form of violence is purer than the democratic violence of the mob, for instance. Plus bourgeois institutions can be notoriously undemocratic: the recent Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage, while laudable, are an example (albeit one that counts against democracy). Socialism is the true embodiment of democracy; how could a society be democratic when "the people" (whatever that slogan means) only control the political sphere (if they even do, which is debatable), even though the political and economic spheres are deeply intertwined?

[Comrade Jacob]

You can progress but you can never reach socialism through bourgeois politics.

[N. Senada]

Reformism as a way to lead from capitalism to socialism is impracticable.

By the way, reformism has been a major part in our recent history.
Due to exceptional conditions, the working class succeded, after the second world war in gain a vaste amount of rights and democratic spaces even into a capitalist society and mostly granted by not leftist government (as for example Democrazia Cristiana in Italy).
Surely the ruling class were forced to make some concessions and the pressure of the working class won due to two main exeptional conditions:
a) the mere existance of the USSR as legacy of the october revolution was a challenge itself for the international bourgeoisie.
b) the economic boom made possibile by the second imperialistic slaughterhouse

So reformism has been real, but it could not, nor it will not, replace a revolutionary project in leading to socialism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Is reformism real? Of course it is. Quite a few people believe they can reach something they call socialism by parliamentary means.

Is it cogent? No. It implies that the ruling class would let itself be destroyed and that this can be accomplished using that class's instrument of rule.

It also depends on what you think socialism is. For us it's the stateless, clasless society where the means of production are held in common and production is scientifically planned to satisfy human need.

[code_red]

You cant get the turkeys to vote for christmas.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Reformism is real.

A question relevant for today is: what is the relationship between reform and revolution, and what are the relationships between reforms and revolutionary actions?

For example, being a revolutionary should not mean that you cannot pursue reforms as tactics (though I think it's a given that people whose agenda is reformism will never support revolutionary actions.

[Guardia Rossa]

It depends on whether you really believe bourgeois democracy is so democratic that the people have the power to push their own agendas.

Bourgeois democracy, as the aristocratic democracy (Look up the polish-lithuanian Sejm) that preceded it, exists only to defend the dominant class and push its agenda in (Theoretically) a decentralized way. It gives voice only to the members of the upper class.

Look at Chile, Brazil or Venezuela. If you elect a real socialist (Or even a fake one, look up Jango, Brazil's 1960-1964 president) the bourgeois will take him out in an undemocratic way. Why?

Because democracy is when they win.

EDIT: Also, take note that most of the [true] rightists in Brazil call the Military Dictatorship the "Democratic, Revolutionary Intervention of the Military to save us from evil communist president João Goulart."
Why? Because it pushed bourgeois agenda while it destroyed the leftist opposition.

[Aslan]

Ever heard of the expression ''the worst slavemasters where the ones who were nice to their slaves?''

Remember there must be class consciousness In order for this to work. Without proper education. The capitalists can actually benefit from reformism. This was what happened after during the labor reforms in the early 20th century. These reforms effectively pacified the proletariat of the developed world...
The lesson we have to learn is that we shouldn't necessarily support reform in liberal democracy. We need to get the lower classes informed of their situation and threatening revolution.

[ShadowStar]

Reformism exists. I don't think communism can be reached through reforms. The system is run the bourgeoisie, including their electoral system, The bourgeoisie would never be so stupid as to allow a communist to be voted in and take away their power. If the bourgeoisie allow some of their power to be voted away it is only to silence more revolutionary ideas.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ever heard of the expression ''the worst slavemasters where the ones who were nice to their slaves?''

Remember there must be class consciousness In order for this to work. Without proper education. The capitalists can actually benefit from reformism. This was what happened after during the labor reforms in the early 20th century. These reforms effectively pacified the proletariat of the developed world...
The lesson we have to learn is that we shouldn't necessarily support reform in liberal democracy. We need to get the lower classes informed of their situation and threatening revolution.

The lower classes? This isn't Downton fucking Abbey.

When you say they, what does that make you, or us? If you say 'they' because you don't consider yourself 'lower class', then that either makes you:

a) an ass;
b) a capitalist - and therefore an ass;
c) somewhat misinformed.

To call all measures under capitalism reforms and then reject them all, so that the 'lower classes' will somehow rise up, is the bedroom fantasy of people who don't really understand what it's like to live a miserable life. I suggest they study the society around them a little more carefully before making such wild claims.

[Luís Henrique]

Quite a few people believe they can reach something they call socialism by parliamentary means.

This is not what reformism is, though.

Reformism is two very different things:

1. The belief that capitalism can be "reformed" into "socialism" without destroying the bourgeois State apparatus.

2. The belief that capitalism can be "reformed" into... ever better capitalism.

Of course those who believe that "capitalism" can be transformed into "socialism" by parliamentary methods are reformists of the first kind; but they could as well believe in such transformation through cooperatives, or bitcoins, or peaceful street demonstrations, and despise parliamentarian action, and they would still be reformists, if they think this can be made without breaking down the bourgeois State.

(There is of course a particular subspecies of this kind of reformism, mostly associated with Kautsky, that tries to elude the issue of rupture by proposing that such rupture should be preceded by electoral victory, but they are far from being the only reformist tendency available in the political market.)

Reformists of the second kind on the other hand may very well be even violent, whether opposed to parliamentary action or not. Many third world "revolutionary" national liberation movements are or were like this. The FARC are no less reformist just because they wage a guerrilla war on the Colombian government.

Luís Henrique