Reformism: The Straw That Broke The Capitalists'

[ComradeRed]

Isn't it possible that reformism will eventually cost too much money that will eventually cause the collapse of capitalism?

[h&s]

But surely the reformists will end up settling for less and less in their reforms, untill they end up being indistinguishable from capitalists?

[redstar2000]

hammer&sickleforever is on the right track. Contemporary reformists don't even try for new reforms anymore...they know they have no chance at getting them.

Instead, they try to "slow down" the pace of dismantling the reforms of an earlier age...the ruling class clearly wants to take us all back to the 19th century and the reformists are "ok" with that but want to do it more slowly.

The other thing that modern reformists like to do is advocate "cost free reforms" that really don't change anything but provide a fresh costume.

Two recent examples in the U.S. are "campaign finance reform" and "prescription drug benefits". In the first case, the legislation compels big campaign donors to channel their large contributions in different ways than they used to. But it's still the candidate with the big money who is most likely to win.

The second case is not really a "reform" at all; it's an arrangement where seniors and disabled can purchase a kind of insurance from prescription drug manufacturers or "managed care providers" that may mean that some very expensive drugs will cost them somewhat less in the long run.

Because this "plan" is under the umbrella of Medicare, it's called a "benefit"...but it will actually work out to be a federal subsidy for the drug industry and only a small number of extremely sick people will actually come out ahead financially. Most seniors and disabled people will actually do worse if they sign up for one of these plans than if they don't.

So it's not reforms that will eventually cause the collapse of capitalism...it's capitalism that will eventually cause the collapse of reformism.

And it can't happen too soon!

:redstar2000:

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

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Indeed, reform can only take one so far within the current framework. For reform to "break" anything, it would have to transcend reform - it would have to somehow operate outside the confines of the system. That is, it would be revolutionary, and not reform at all.

[apathy maybe]

Reformism has achieved gains in the past. While many would argue that the reason for these were to prevent revolution by the workers; they did gain such things as the 8-hour day. Now if these reforms are being lost, then it simply means that the ruling classes think that the chance for revolution is less.
So if reformism worked in the past, but isn't now, what is different?

[Guest1]

That people now are specifically working for reform, where as in the past the ideas of revolution had a much more prominent place in the realm of public debate.

Think of bargaining, ask for all and get half, ask for a tenth, and get close to zero.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 07:10 PM
Isn't it possible that reformism will eventually cost too much money that will eventually cause the collapse of capitalism?
No.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
So if reformism worked in the past, but isn't now, what is different?

Capitalism itself.

That is, when capitalism was young (say 1850 to 1950, roughly) there was "room" for reformism. The system was so productive that a portion of the surplus could be "given back" (under pressure) to the working class.

I don't think that's any longer the case. Indeed, the last half-century has seen capitalism spend more and more of its resources on "security" -- the military, prisons, police both public and private, etc.

To meet these ever rising costs, capitalism has begun to dismantle all the old reforms (on the grounds of international competitiveness, no less).

There's at least one guy who argues that "security costs" will be the ultimate crushing burden of capitalism that will cause it to collapse.

An interesting hypothesis...and one that's well worthy of consideration.

:redstar2000:

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

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+--> (Che y Marijuana) That people now are specifically working for reform, where as in the past the ideas of revolution had a much more prominent place in the realm of public debate.

Think of bargaining, ask for all and get half, ask for a tenth, and get close to zero. [/b]
I understand. So if people are intending to try and reform capitalism, they should be asking for outrageous stuff.


redstar2000

Capitalism itself.

That is, when capitalism was young (say 1850 to 1950, roughly) there was "room" for reformism. The system was so productive that a portion of the surplus could be "given back" (under pressure) to the working class.

I don't think that's any longer the case. Indeed, the last half-century has seen capitalism spend more and more of its resources on "security" -- the military, prisons, police both public and private, etc.

To meet these ever rising costs, capitalism has begun to dismantle all the old reforms (on the grounds of international competitiveness, no less).

There's at least one guy who argues that "security costs" will be the ultimate crushing burden of capitalism that will cause it to collapse.

An interesting hypothesis...and one that's well worthy of consideration.
Actually redstar2000 I disagree that capitalism has rising costs and lessening profits. If anything in "western" countries profits are rising and costs are lessening (as jobs are shipped else where).

Security it self is an industry. A number of companies are being paid to run jails, have security guards, and install CCTV and alarms.

If anything I think that this encourages capitalism.

(Another hypthesis on the collapse of capitalism is that environmental problems will bring about its downfall.)
edit: do my quotes work yet?

[STI]

No, they're still not working.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 18 2004, 11:54 PM
I understand. So if people are intending to try and reform capitalism, they should be asking for outrageous stuff.
No. Once revolution took a backseat, the demands were no longer threatening. It wasn't "let's throw them a bone to keep them from taking everything" anymore. They still throw some bones once in a while, but not many.

What major reforms have been passed in the past 20 years? Comparable to things like the establishment of universal socialized healthcare in canada, etc?

[apathy maybe]

You make a very good point. But until I see a revolution in the near future, I will continue to fight for reforms throught the parliamentry system.
I will of course continue to advocate the other methods, communes, co-ops, unions etc. It won't do anything on its own, but combined with other tools I still see reformism to be able to get good deals for the people in the short term.

[Invader Zim]

Instead, they try to "slow down" the pace of dismantling the reforms of an earlier age...the ruling class clearly wants to take us all back to the 19th century and the reformists are "ok" with that but want to do it more slowly.

Speak for your self Redstar, the rest of us living in reality see it totally different.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe+--> (Apathy Maybe)But until I see a revolution in the near future, I will continue to fight for reforms through the parliamentary system.[/b]

We are each entitled to our own choice of follies; I, for example, purchase two lottery tickets every week even though the odds (about 3.8 million to one) are staggering.

Of course, even those odds are infinitely better than your choice...you have zero chance of ever winning anything.


Enigma
Speak for yourself, Redstar, the rest of us living in reality see it totally different.

Like everyone else here, I always "speak for myself"...your injunction is superfluous.

On the other hand, your claim to be "living in reality" is simply...unreal. :D

:redstar2000:

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

[cormacobear]

Canadian National Child Care program the result of national left wing preasure. You're right people are far less willing to consider revolution, considering the weapons at the disposal of the powers that be that seems quite logical.

So you think we should do nothing let our own quality of life deteriorate untill revolution is enevitable. That seems like a heartless Idea and could take another 100 years.

western europe has made great strides toward the left, and in Germany it appears voters are willing to take a second look at planned economics.

I have no idea what will cause the U.S. to change it's ways the conservative right are deeply intrenched, with diminishing quality of education, and falling working conditions they seem to have the majority right where they want them. So maybe reform isn't the answer there but I've not given up on reforms in the rest of the world.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Those things weren't won in elections - they were won by the radical struggle of the working class, which forces governments to conceed certain benefits. Reforms like that are governments' concessions to revolution - they're our nice bonuses on the way to overthrowing the whole system.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by cormacobear
So you think we should do nothing, let our own quality of life deteriorate until revolution is inevitable? That seems like a heartless idea and could take another 100 years.

I think that is what is happening right now and that it's going to continue no matter what we do or don't do, say or don't say.

Capitalism is "heartless".

That being the case, we've nothing to lose by advocating revolution...no matter how long it takes for people to listen.

Whereas begging for capitalists to "have a heart" is servile, demoralizing, and misleads people into thinking that such a thing is possible.

It's not.

:redstar2000:

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

[Guest1]

The reality is that to get to revolution we must organize the working class and radicalize unions. On the way there, the union bureaucreacy will find itself being rejected and losing its grip on the organizations it controls. As this happens, workers begin to take more control of unions and organize together for radical struggle. Strikes become more frequent and more daring, and general strikes eventually become the preferred method of struggle.

All these events scare the shit out of capitalists, who will be throwing reform at the working class all along to slow it down and put out the fire.

The realit is, the best way to win even reforms is to work for revolution. Radical struggle is the only option.

[apathy maybe]

Redstar2000, do you propose we stand on street corners and hand out paper promoting the revolution? How do you propose we get a revolution? Fighting for parliamentry representation is not "begging", nor is doing what Che y Marijuana is suggesting. Nor is organising safe houses, stockpilling food and other goods and other activities. Each has it's place.

And what would you do if you won a significant amount of money from the lottery? Invest it maybe? Or distribute it to various causes? (After buying those things you listed in another thread.)

[simonamstell]

INDEED

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
Redstar2000, do you propose we stand on street corners and hand out paper promoting the revolution?

At this point, I don't think many casual passers-by would understand such a paper.

But it never hurts to "advertise" even now...and there are certainly ways to do that which don't involve imitating the Seventh Day Adventists or the Jehova's Witnesses. :lol:

What I do propose is that we revolutionaries encourage resistance to capitalist despotism and, if a particular form of resistance looks unusually promising, then participate in it as well.

By resistance, I mean what the anarchists call "direct action"...things that people do completely outside the tightly-regulated "official" forms of political activity and even in direct defiance of those forms.


How do you propose we get a revolution?

You can't "get" one like you go and "get a pizza".

Great revolutions are the products of enormous class struggles and involve tens of millions of active participants.

Our task is to make revolutionary ideas available to the masses; they will decide when it is appropriate to act on those ideas.


Fighting for parliamentary representation is not "begging"...

I'm afraid it is.

And should you ever be elected, you will find the humiliations endless.


Nor is organising safe houses, stockpiling food and other goods and other activities. Each has its place.

To what are you alluding here? I don't advocate any of that foolishness. Are you suggesting that the only alternative to wallowing in the muck of bourgeois politics is playing at "urban guerrilla warfare"?

That's just absurd!

Frankly, if I ran across someone who I thought was serious about "urban guerrilla warfare", I would avoid that person like the plague.

It would be 99.99% certain that said individual was a fucking cop!


And what would you do if you won a significant amount of money from the lottery? Invest it maybe? Or distribute it to various causes?

Of course I'd give most of it away...but deciding on the recipients would be a major undertaking.

One problem is that you can't give too much at one time to any group; they'll stop doing the stuff that you wanted to support and start squabbling with each other over the money. (Sad but true.)

So I might end up having to set up a series of trust funds that would automatically pay a modest amount to each group I wanted to support on a monthly basis...enough to help but not so much as to cripple.

In any event, the drawings that I enter have odds of nearly 4,000,000 to 1 against winning...so my chances are pretty small.

:redstar2000:

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

[apathy maybe]

Parliamentary representation is one of the quickest (once elected) to ways to get these ideas out to the people. On the road to getting elected, you also get more media coverage then normal.

As to the rest, safe houses are useful in the event of riots, strikes etc. Take the case of 1968 in Paris; if students and workers were prepared for the police brutality, there would not have been nearly as many arrests and casualties.
Other activities are such things as, (depending on the issue) tying one self to bulldozers, organising protests, graffiti, forms of "direct action", as I said, each has its place. (And Urban Guerrilla Warfare, where did I mention that?)

I see all tools as having as use, and I see the parliament as just another tool.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 24 2004, 05:47 AM
As to the rest, safe houses are useful in the event of riots, strikes etc. Take the case of 1968 in Paris; if students and workers were prepared for the police brutality, there would not have been nearly as many arrests and casualties.
Other activities are such things as, (depending on the issue) tying one self to bulldozers, organising protests, graffiti, forms of "direct action", as I said, each has its place. (And Urban Guerrilla Warfare, where did I mention that?)

I see all tools as having as use, and I see the parliament as just another tool.
The Parliament or the Congress IS NOT a tool for the working class.
If anything - Parliamentary Representation is wortless or in other words - not
worthy of our time. The job of Real Proletarian Revolutionaries is to provide
the working class the tools to eliminate the spectacle of capitalism. The rest
is up to the workers - it is The Worker's Revolution after all!