Reformism or peaceful transition

[Socialistpenguin]

Hi all,
Just wanted to ask people this: In the Communist Manifesto, and in the Communist Theory FAQ, it says that "If a peaceful way to socialism is discovered, we Communists should encourage and appluade this way. However, it is often that this mode almost always fails."

However, across the forum, I have noticed that anyone proposing a peaceful way to convert to socialism, is shouted down as being "Reformist!" What gives?

Please assist me: this is very puzzling

[Martin Blank]

You have a lot of people who get a chest full of bravado when they're on the Internet, and they try to flex their r-r-r-revolutionary muscles by denouncing anyone who even hints at such a position as being "reformist". (These are usually the same people whose list of activist credentials could fit on the back of a postage stamp, too.)

A friend of mine, a member of another organization, had a memorable way of putting it: "When I'm asked if I advocate violent overthrow of the U.S. government, I say, 'No, I'd rather they face reality and walk away.... But daddy didn't raise no fool. So, I keep my powder dry'."

I personally like the formulation used by the British Chartists of the 19th century: "Peacefully if we can; by force if we must."

Miles

[Clarksist]

The anti-Reformist sentiment is due to many Reformists taking power away from the revolution. All the Reformists end up doing is compromising with the Capitalists.

Almost all revolutionary communists would advocate all peacefull routes being explored before we goto violence. The thing is, in a plutocracy we can't get it done. How do I know? Because Communist and Socialist parties have been attempting to "reform" all the major countries for DECADES. We've been peacefully asking for our share, and by just asking again and again, we give them the authority to just say "no."

Reformists are now weakening the movement and sucking away people from the true cause.

[enigma2517]

"You haven't got a revolution without bloodshed" - Malcom X

I think thats certainetly true, however, the extent to which it is true can be debatable. I think few can truely recognize the power that the proletariat holds. A general strike can topple any government, anywhere, I gurantee that. It has to be properly organized and executed (and of course has to have numbers involved that are significant enough), but I think its a sure thing that we can overthrow any bureaucracy within a month.

When looking at history, we don't need to be told any different. In May of '68, the President of France was ready to declare a state of emergency if workers did not return to work. Thats pretty serious. The thing is, nobody steps down from power that easily. In the end, there will always be bloodshed. Our strength is that we, the aggressors, can choose when and where to fight the battles. We look just like any other citizen, we can emerge and strike or recede into the urban background quite easily. Using force is not always appropriate. My opinion is that truely violent actions (guns, killing people) should be something that we should train from day one for, but keep stowed away until the very climax of insurrection.

Reformism is dirty business. I don't doubt the sincerity of those who participate in it, but its inevitable that they too will only bargain with our freedom. The state, capital, the "political process" are all abstractions. They exist only as long as we let them and they oppress us only as long as we obey them. Seizing them is not enough, if not counterproductive. When the time comes they will fall hard and fast. That will only happen when a certain number of individuals achieve the consciousness and education to make it happen.

So make it happen! Reformism will only lead to a loss of hope and cynicism, direct action will empower the masses. With a new objective each day, the common person will begin to more accuratelly perceive the extent of their power. And thats what we need, empowerment, not representation. Fuck that. You, and I, and everybody else know what we want, whether we realize it just yet or not.


Refer to another post made by Rise Up on the myths of direct action.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38223

Edit:

A reply to Clarkist:

Exactly, reformism only gives the existing system legitimacy. Its a vacuum. No significant change will ever come from it, yet people keep putting effort into it. All of that energy gets wasted. If John Doe had spent more time running his Food Not Bombs stand while handing out radical literature rather than campaigning for his new favorite Green party candidate then maybe something would get done.

[monkeydust]

Well this board is a "revolutionary" left board, so it's unsurprising that most people don't like it. However I agree that it would be nice to see some more debate on the issue as opposed to rash insults.

The main argument people seems to use against reformism is something bland along the lines of: History shows that all attempts to achieve Communism by reforms fail > Reformism cannot achieve Communism and is only a way of achieving Capitalism with a "human" face.

Most seem to neglect that the same argument would render the revolutionary path to Communism defunct as well, but hey.

[More Fire for the People]

As generally Marxist, we do not support reformism but we are the first to support peaceful measures towards socialism but we also realizet that peaceful methods won't work.

Read about it in The Civil War in France (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm) by Marx, I'd check out chapter five first [The Paris Commune].