Reform and Reformism

[Ol' Dirty]

From the book, Reform or Revolution:

"For Social Democracy there exists an indissouluble tie betwen social reform and revolution. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution is its goal."

A lot of people here say that reform is "icky", and I find that kind of foolish. Reform is just as neccasery to the movement as any other form activism.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Well, reform can help the working class, but it won't achieve a "revolutionary" goal in ANY way...

[cenv]

Reform is "icky" because at the very most it gives the working class the illusion that they are accomplishing something. It's simply not practical to expect to completely overturn our current economic and political structures as well as, most importantly, today's class relations by working within the bourgeois system. You simply can't conduct a social revolution with reformism.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 01:50 am
Reform is "icky" because at the very most it gives the working class the illusion that they are accomplishing something. It's simply not practical to expect to completely overturn our current economic and political structures as well as, most importantly, today's class relations by working within the bourgeois system. You simply can't conduct a social revolution with reformism.
I know that. I'm merely saying that reform is a neccassary to achieve revolutionary goals. You can't go from pure capitalism on day to communism the next. There needs to be some for of transition.

[Severian]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 24, 2006 11:10 pm
Well, reform can help the working class, but it won't achieve a "revolutionary" goal in ANY way...
That's where you're wrong, as Luxemburg points out. Reform and revolution aren't counterposed - that's her overall point in her famous polemic against the reformist Bernstein.

It's through the fight for "reforms" - more exactly, for demands levied on the ruling class - that the working class begins to organize through revolution.

Without that fight, all that's left is abstract propaganda; merely rhetorical calls for revolution which "won't achieve a revolutionary goal in ANY way".....

If you read Luxemburg's pamphlet you might learn something (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/intro.htm)

Or this thread discussing it. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45512)

I gotta say this armchair-socialist rejection of all struggle for "reforms" - is vastly more common on the web than in real life. It's the perfect rationalization for doing nothing.

[RNK]

Reformism by definition implies "revolutionary elections". If you're actually referring to the role of parliamentarism in revolutionary action then I'd have to agree -- there is a role the revolution needs to play in parliament itself, as well as on the streets, as well as in the countryside. We can't expect simply to obliterate every last molecule of capitalism in the blink of an eye and rebuild foundations for all humanity over it. Such a violent transition would be too much for society to bear, reguardless of their revolutionary conscience. The revolution needs to be multi-facetted and launched on many fronts, fought in many arenas, be it in the halls of government by revolutionary intellectuals, be it on the streets by revolutionary mass protests, or be it in the jungles and forests and farmlands and suburbs by revolutionary guerillas.

[emokid08]

Revolution can't be pushed through Parliament, as most "reform" legislation is.

Although already mentioned, reform is especially disgusting due to the fact that the workers and peasants think that things are getting better and progress is being made- in reality the bosses are pulling the wool over our eyes, almost like appeasment kinda sorta.

We can't settle for or be happy with reforms. Raising the minimum wage isn't socialism-it's welfare statism.

:star: :AO: :A: :redstar: :hammer:

[Whitten]

Reform and parliamentarianism shouldnt be rejected completly. Ofocurse they cant replace the revolution, but I dont see why we shouldnt try to make the current system a little better while we''re stuck with it.

With every reform the bourgeois lose a little ground.

[emokid08]

We can't risk people becoming complacent [sic?] with the reforms a legislative body achieves. If the ruling elite does a little here and a little there every now and then to keep everyone quiet, then many will doubt if a revolution is actually needed.

I don't think a government can actually achieve anything liberartory.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 07:59 am
We can't risk people becoming complacent [sic?] with the reforms a legislative body achieves
Views like this alienate anarchist activists from the people. You can't simply tell the people "no, we don't want you to get an increase in the minimum wage, otherwise you'll be happy and we won't get our revolution. just continue to live a shit life"

It's very easy for people who have a comfortable standard of living to tell others that they don't need reforms.

[emokid08]

We don't need reforms, we need revolution.
Reforms are basically half assed attempts to make things better for the workers and peasants.
Instead of raisng the minumum wage we need to abolish wage slavery.

Life with reforms only gets nominally better. Whereas one's life is liberated with revolution.

I want our lives to get better, I just get disgusted when reforms only band aid the problem-I'ma revolutionary-only the destruction of capitalism will suffice.

:A: :AO: :star:

[Whitten]

I think your missing the point. No ones saying we should abandon the revolution for reforms. Whats being suggested is that while we're stuck under capitalism we may as well get everything we can out of it.

[emokid08]

We can't get anything out of capitalism-that's the point of our revolutionary tendencies.

The point of capitalism is to screw everybody and everything over, while turning out a nice and juicy profit. Exploitation, oppression, wage slavery, repression etc etc are all facets of capitalism. There’s nothing in it for us, we won’t ever get anything beneficial out of being burdened with the yolk of capitalism.

What crumbs we manage to scrounge up are nothing compared to what we could have with revolution.

In other words, reforms are clever ploys, tricks carried out by the oppressing elites to keep us happy. Reforms will never be anything substantial-why support them?

I certainly won’t buy into reforms; we need to be focused on revolution instead.

:AO: :A: :star:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Delta+November 27, 2006 12:48 pm--> (Delta @ November 27, 2006 12:48 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2006 07:59 am
We can't risk people becoming complacent [sic?] with the reforms a legislative body achieves
Views like this alienate anarchist activists from the people. You can't simply tell the people "no, we don't want you to get an increase in the minimum wage, otherwise you'll be happy and we won't get our revolution. just continue to live a shit life"

It's very easy for people who have a comfortable standard of living to tell others that they don't need reforms. [/b]
These can be necessary reforms at times but they should never be achieved through parliamentary means. They should be won through direct action. This helps workers prepare organization and communication for revolution. It also radicalizes people because it's showing that the state is not necessary and what the working class can achieve once organized.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 08:55 am
With every reform the bourgeois lose a little ground.
I'd be very interested in the evidence of this.

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by Delta+November 27, 2006 08:48 am--> (Delta @ November 27, 2006 08:48 am)
[email protected] 27, 2006 07:59 am
We can't risk people becoming complacent [sic?] with the reforms a legislative body achieves
Views like this alienate anarchist activists from the people. You can't simply tell the people "no, we don't want you to get an increase in the minimum wage, otherwise you'll be happy and we won't get our revolution. just continue to live a shit life"

It's very easy for people who have a comfortable standard of living to tell others that they don't need reforms. [/b]
I don't think he means its as you say. The current lifestyle, at least for us Americans, is most people rely on the media for information. Its not that WE want a revolution. Its just we need it.

Lets take a lil example from history because I cannot think off the top of my head some problems as of now... lets say minimum wage was at 3 bucks an hour, people are crying for punishment for police brutality, and blacks are not permitted to integrate with whites. People are on a verge of revolution, or at least riots and shit are breaking out. The media shows this and people are becoming self-aware of whats going on. The capitalistic politicians then raise minimum wage to 4 bucks, fire or slap the wrist of a couple of cops and allow blacks to sit in the front of the bus. The media exploits these few incidents and what do you know? "Everything is now fine and dandy." This is how the government saves itself from controversial issues. Take an example from LBJ in the 60's. He was once affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, as well as many other congress members. But once the overwhelming population became more aware of their rights, what happened? No more segregation. LBJ signed a bill and that was that. But has segregation truly been abolished in society? Has the problem really been solved? In a literal sence yes. But racism is still found all over the country. People of other countries look at America with shame because of how idiotic it has become.

[Ol' Dirty]

Revolution can't be pushed through Parliament, as most "reform" legislation is.

Heavy tax cuts for all proletarians, an increased tax burden for all bourgoise, the socialization of medical care, public support for socio economic programs, and a state-funded media outlet that supports revolutionary goals are all things that could lead to revolution. I'm not saying that reform is going to free us from our bondage to the bourgoise, but it would certainly loosen our chains, allowing for us to make a great sweep onto the bourgoise class.


Although already mentioned, reform is especially disgusting due to the fact that the workers and peasants think that things are getting better and progress is being made- in reality the bosses are pulling the wool over our eyes, almost like appeasment kinda sorta.

What if a truly revolutionary party introduced these ideas? What if the majority of the proletariat supported them, and the bourgoise hated them? Which boss wouldn't hate the above legislations?


We can't settle for or be happy with reforms.

Nowhere short of revolution. Reform is merely a vehicle to revolution.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 04:10 pm
These can be necessary reforms at times but they should never be achieved through parliamentary means. They should be won through direct action.
Never ever? I mean, you're mostly right. The point of demanding things from the ruling class, and fighting for them, is that workers organize and fight, and gain experience and confidence.

For that to happen, clearly elections, lobbying, writing your Senator, Etc., have to be subordinate means if used at all.

This thread started with a quote from Rosa Luxemburg, who emphasized mass action over the primarily electoral orientation of the German Social Democratic Party.

But anytime you start saying never this or that, declaring various tactics Unclean and proclaiming people must avoid all contact with anything that might tempt them into reformism.....there's usually a dogmatic and inflexible approach at work.

Anything that increases class consciousness, and the confidence and power of our class, is good....

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 01:44 pm
The point of demanding things from the ruling class, and fighting for them, is that workers organize and fight, and gain experience and confidence.
Clearly you still think this tactic works; even due to the fact that it has been used for centuries and has achieved very little in terms of "workers organing, fight and gaining confidence." Even the most "workerist" revolutions in history have not fallen on this tactic as a pre-requsite for societal change.

At what point does do you accept that doesn't work?

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2006 07:18 am
Clearly you still think this tactic works;
For starters, it's not a tactic, obviously.

Tactics are the means one uses, including in the fight for particular demands, different in every time and place. The overal idea of making demands on the ruling class and fighting to force the ruling class to grant them, is more fundamental.

It's been applied by all modern revolutionaries in all times and places, so obviously not a mere tactic. A strategy, if you want to continue with the military analogy.

You may think this is a quibble; but how far would anyone get in war if they couldn't distinguish between tactics and strategy?


Even the most "workerist" revolutions in history have not fallen on this tactic as a pre-requsite for societal change.

You're just showing your total ignorance of history here. Most if not all revolutions, historically - all mass participation in overthrowing a regime or social order - have grown out of actions making demands on the old regime.

To pick one example, the 1905 Russian Revolution began with a workers' demonstration to present a petition to the tsar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)) This was organized by fake unions set up the secret police, and headed by a priest. The workers carried religious icons and sang hymns.

The regime, unlike you, recognized even this kind of organization was dangerous. The cops fired on the demonstration. This sparked the 1905 uprising. Clearly the Russian Marxists' activity in union organization - even through the fake police-run unions when there was no other opportunity - had revolutionary results.

I could point out the many demands levied by the Bolsheviks during the course of the 1917 revolution, and the strikes and protests organized to press them. The Bolsheviks ran in tsarist and Provisional Government elections, too. And used the parliament as a forum for propaganda. Again, obviously paid off.

Or there's your own favorite example, the 1936 Spanish Revolution. Anarchism was unusually influential in Spain - principly through the CNT labor union federation. Obviously, these unions demanded all kinds of things of the bosses and fought to win those demands, otherwise they wouldn't be unions. And otherwise anarchists would have had no effect on the major events of the class struggle - as they don't in most places and times.

That's true of the different revolutions involving guerilla warfare, too. None of them were purely military. They all grew out of the previous political history of those countries, and the parties leading 'em all made demands on the old order - often while fighting an armed conflict with them.

Certainly nobody who stands aside from the everyday class struggle - which consists of the fight for "reforms" if you want to put it that way - has ever amounted to anything in a revolution either.

So in fact, yes, the strategic approach of raising transitional demands and fighting for them together with other workers has historically paid off for revolutionaries. It's the only one that has.

But if you refuse to know anything about history, and prefer to make assumptions based on an arrogant elitist contempt for most people - I can't stop you. No fact or rational argument is likely to reach you, or change such a deep-rooted gut attitude.