Reformist/Evolutionary Socialism

[__ca va?]

“Their influence would be much greater than it is to-day if the social democracy could find the courage to emancipate itself from a phraseology which is actually outworn and if it would make up its mind to appear what it is in reality to-day: a democratic, socialistic party of reform.” – Evolutionary Socialism /Eduard Bernstein/


This :rolleyes: is supposed to be the guiding principle of reformist marxism. My problem is that I don't really know the details.
If anyone knows what it is in detail, than could he/she sum it up? I'm afraid my English is not too good to read the whole works of Bernstein on Marxist Internet Archive, so it would be easier if sy told me

[Invader Zim]

Its basically saying (from what I can gather at anyrate), that the social democrats and reformist Marxists use outdated phraseology and should move on, so that people of the day can actually understand them.

I think thats kind of ironic really, considering that now practically the entire leftist movment is now stuck in the same hole, and must emancipate its self from obsolite phraseology.

[redstar2000]

Bernstein actually made two interesting observations.

The first was that capitalism at that point (c.1900) was "not developing" the way that Marx thought it would...workers were becoming "better off" instead of "worse off".

"Therefore", he concluded, "we should drop all this revolution crap and simply go on reforming capitalism forever...and eventually socialism and even communism will be the outcome".

But it is Bernstein's second observation, which you quoted, that I find much more interesting. He saw "beneath the surface" of the Marxist rhetoric in the German Social Democratic Party...and said simply "let's talk in accordance with our real understanding".

He thought social democratic reformism was "a good thing" and didn't see why the German SPD shouldn't change its rhetoric to match.

Personally, I think that was very perceptive of him. Kautsky, Luxemburg, and even Lenin, Trotsky, Martov, etc. all thought that the German SPD was a "revolutionary Marxist" party...right up until 1914.

Then, its rottenness became apparent for all to see...but Bernstein saw it all more than a decade earlier!

Marxism is a very powerful way of understanding reality...even in the hands of its enemies.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[__ca va?]

The first was that capitalism at that point (c.1900) was "not developing" the way that Marx thought it would...workers were becoming "better off" instead of "worse off".

"Therefore", he concluded, "we should drop all this revolution crap and simply go on reforming capitalism forever...and eventually socialism and even communism will be the outcome".


Than I am a reformist marxist (as it came out in a poll here at Che lives). In my opinion facts show that if living conditions of the workers had been worsening then they would have revolted. But they didn't, in fact the only revolutions took place in much less developed countries like Russia and China. Where real capitalism existed (US, England etc.) there were no revolutions.

The only way communists almost came to power in Western Europe (especially France and Italy) was by getting into the legislative bodies through elections. And maybe it were these communist politicians that forced the governments to reform, and doing this they prevented the revolution. But I can say workers are well off there nowdays. (of course not all of them)

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 06:10 AM
The first was that capitalism at that point (c.1900) was "not developing" the way that Marx thought it would...workers were becoming "better off" instead of "worse off".

I think that that you are doing a common misstake, and that you are in fact confusing Marx theory with Lassalles (iam sorry, but I have no clue what their theories are called in english); the main difference between these theories is that Marx' was relative and a tendency, while Lassalle's was absolute and a law.

So I do not think that you can call Marx wrong on this one. The general
tendency (of cource there is alot of examples of the opposite development to, but in general...) is really that the workers have been recieving less and less of the value in relation to how much much they produce. The capitalist exploition have generally increased.

[Djehuti]

Than I am a reformist marxist (as it came out in a poll here at Che lives). In my opinion facts show that if living conditions of the workers had been worsening then they would have revolted.

As far as I know there is no scientific historical reasearch that proves that there is a relation between povertry and revolution. Iam really more on the operaists side in this; there is much more potentiallity of a communist revolution in times when capitalism is accually going "forward" so to speak, when the material wealth is increasing.


The only way communists almost came to power in Western Europe (especially France and Italy) was by getting into the legislative bodies through elections.

The French and Italian communist parties were bourgeoise scum, they activly worked against the working class in most way possible. They more like right-wing social democrats than communists.


And maybe it were these communist politicians that forced the governments to reform,

Very unlikely in my opinon.


But I can say workers are well off there nowdays. (of course not all of them)

And the major problems still excists. The proletarians in western europe no longer works under terrible conditions for an even more terrible wage. Today, most proletarians are having atleast some standards, but the alienation continues, and will do so even if we all would live in castles.

[redstar2000]

So I do not think that you can call Marx wrong on this one.

I don't...but I think he was very premature.

Up until 1970-80 or so, the general condition of the proletariat did advance, at least in the "west".

Since then it has stagnated or even marginally declined...and there are no signs of improvement. Indeed, all of the "indicators" look pretty grim.

Thus, I think Marx's hypothesis of "the immiseration of the proletariat", so often derided by Marx's critics in the 20th century, is "coming true".

Indeed, I think this century is going to look much more like the 19th century than the 20th in many respects.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[__ca va?]

As far as I know there is no scientific historical reasearch that proves that there is a relation between povertry and revolution. I am really more on the operaists side in this; there is much more potentiallity of a communist revolution in times when capitalism is accually going "forward" so to speak, when the material wealth is increasing.

Why is there a bigger possibility of a revolution when material wealth is increasing? It doesn't really make any sense. In fact I can immediately tell you an example of the opposite: in Bolivia Che couldn't make the revolution because he went there when the government began to reform and give land to the guajiros. This was one of the main reasones the peasants turned against Che.

On the contrary: Neither Russia nor China or Cuba was in a time of "material wealth" when the revolution broke out.


Since then it has stagnated or even marginally declined...and there are no signs of improvement. Indeed, all of the "indicators" look pretty grim.

What are the living conditions of a proletarian family in the US? And how many proletarians are there? I'm just curious.

[redstar2000]

What are the living conditions of a proletarian family in the US?

In order to maintain (sort of) that famous "middle class" standard-of-living, both partners must work full-time jobs and must go deeply into debt.

In fact, something like 2/3rds of the American economy is driven by consumer spending...and a huge proportion of that is credit-card debt, second mortgages, student loans, etc.

There is no sign of a decrease in this trend and it may even be accelerating.

We could go into a "great depression" in a single year...and it wouldn't take much to cause a dramatic melt-down of American capitalism.


And how many proletarians are there?

Including dependent children? My estimate would be around 200 million or so. Say roughly 2/3rds of the population.

Small capitalists and their families might account for another 75 million and the ruling class would top out around 5 million.

That's a very rough "ballpark" estimate, of course.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[__ca va?]

In order to maintain (sort of) that famous "middle class" standard-of-living, both partners must work full-time jobs and must go deeply into debt.

I've heard about this lately. That a middle-class family has to take loans to buy that house and car and etc. And then they have to pay it all of their lives.

But what can we do? And if we could win an election and come to power what would be our relations to capitalist nations? Hostility or just living in peace and not bothering them? What do you all think about this?
(This question was inspired by a recent experience at nationstates.net. Basically two socialist regions became hostile with eachother because one of them was tolerating the capitalists)

[redstar2000]

And if we could win an election and come to power what would be our relations to capitalist nations? Hostility or just living in peace and not bothering them? What do you all think about this?

Well, we won't be "coming to power" by "winning an election"...so that's irrelevant.

Otherwise, I think we're likely to be verbally rather hostile to the remaining capitalist countries...but purely defensive in our "military" posture.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[__ca va?]

Well, we won't be "coming to power" by "winning an election"...so that's irrelevant.


Ehh, I think that is our only chance. People in the western world may be explited but they are not oppressed politically. They have their freedoms* (though they are very limited by money in doing what they want). And in these conditions people are not likely to revolt, because though they don't live well they don't only have their chains to lose. This means our only possibility of getting the contol over any country is by getting elected.
Of course I don't have to be right. Anyway, I'm just a 16 year old downtown kid :D

*have their freedoms: I don't know how the patriotic act affects this

[socialistfuture]

i think this somes up how a lot of people feel about elections:
"Our dreams will not fit in your ballot boxes."