Social-Revisionism

[HatefulRed]

Either I'm not getting the whole idea of social-revisionism or I am not meant to be here. Why is it so bad? I've only read about it on the surface like in history books and online sources, but apparently it's achieving socialism gradually through peaceful reforms. What's wrong with that?

[beneath the wheel]

I aggree. if you look at the United States, they have made a lot of changes favoring the working middle and lower classes. in the 200+ years since its liberation from brittan, the united states has slowly taken steps toward becoming a more socialist country. they have implemented public schools, medecaid(socialized healthicare, but only one that pays part of elders bills), social security(a pension plan), welfare, public housing, the abolition of monopolies, and the support of labor unions.

but the majority of the problems go unsolved, and they still exploit those in foreign countries, and there are no worldly labor laws.

but i believe that a revolution can come from peaceful protest and civil disobediance, just look at Gahndi.

(I am an American by the way)



sorry for any mispellings :wacko:

[Delirium]

Why is it so bad? I've only read about it on the surface like in history books and online sources, but apparently it's achieving socialism gradually through peaceful reforms. What's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with it other than it does not work, all social democratic parties abandon their commitment to socialism. Those in power will never give up their privilege voluntarily.

The only way to achieve socialism it from the bottom up, that is working class people getting together and forming revolutionary organizations.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Heck, even modern "social-democrats" are just that in only, differentiating between modern social democracy and socialism and abandoning both.

In retrospect, I cannot see why people still argue that Stalin was wrong in regards to fascism and modern social democracy as "twins."

And, historically speaking, you may wish to read this bourgeois article on Bernstein and his "other" legacy:

The Mystery of Fascism (http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm)



As a side note, this thread should be moved into Learning, Politics, or History.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

because most parties that advocate this rarely implement it

e.g. the Labour Party in the UK

[A.J.]

Either I'm not getting the whole idea of social-revisionism or I am not meant to be here. Why is it so bad? I've only read about it on the surface like in history books and online sources, but apparently it's achieving socialism gradually through peaceful reforms. What's wrong with that?

Because, er, socialism is unattainable through 'peaceful' means due to the fact that the state apparatus in not class neutral. The bourgeois state machine must physically smashed to bits and a proletarian state constructed in it's place to eliminate counter-revolutionary resistance.

Violent revolution is a principle not a dogma.


I aggree. if you look at the United States, they have made a lot of changes favoring the working middle and lower classes. in the 200+ years since its liberation from brittan, the united states has slowly taken steps toward becoming a more socialist country. they have implemented public schools, medecaid(socialized healthicare, but only one that pays part of elders bills), social security(a pension plan), welfare, public housing, the abolition of monopolies, and the support of labor unions.


All those reforms were gained when the Soviet Union was a force to be reckoned with on the world stage and the bourgeoisie was shitting pants that it's days were about to be numbered so therefore made numerous concessions.

Now, long since capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union, the internal and external balance of forces have tilted in favour of capital over labour and bourgeoisie is subsequently trying to wipe out the gains you listed above in order to attain profit-maximisation.


^^^ Heck, even modern "social-democrats" are just that in only, differentiating between modern social democracy and socialism and abandoning both.

In retrospect, I cannot see why people still argue that Stalin was wrong in regards to fascism and modern social democracy as "twins."


Social-democracy and fascism are non-identical twins.
Twins because they are both used as instruments of the bourgeoisie to oppose socialist revolution.
Non-identical because social-democracy and fascism oppose socialist revolution through different methods.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:16 am
In retrospect, I cannot see why people still argue that Stalin was wrong in regards to fascism and modern social democracy as "twins."
I don't think so. They represent an underlying tendency that capital takes in a moment of political crisis, but it can not be related to fascism in any way, since social democracy can be considered a band-aid for capitalism, while fascism can be considered emergency surgery for capitalism. It is the last desperate action of the capitalist class; it is their class' 'last chance' to preserve themselves in other words. It has shown us as interpters of history that capital becomes a cagged animal that obnoxiously lashes at it's master as it is being cornered in their cage. These tendencies have different means of preservation, since with fascism, armed thugs are the force of protecting the ruling class, while with social democracy, legislation is the tool of protecting the ruling class. So we can clearly see the difference between these two, and we can most certainly not slump them into the same category.

Even after the suppression of the revolutionary workers in Berlin and Bavaria in 1919, the Social Democratic Party became increasingly dissociated with the Freikorps, and had to resort to less militant tactics of dispelling certain opposition. It was an utter failure of the Comintern to understand that if the KPD had cooperated with the Social Democrats, they could of easily propagated their message to a larger audience who were disillusioned by reformist politics.


Review of 1917-1923:
The German Revolution: 19The party's numbers grew steadily, reaching 1,085,905 members in 1914. Its vote increased from 311,900 in 1881 to 4 million in the 1912 elections, when it sent 110 deputies to the National Assembly (Reichstag), in addition to more than 3,000 other officials into lower bodies. The party maintained 90 daily newspapers, employed 267 full-time journalists and 3,000 manual and clerical workers, and led trade unions totaling 2 million members. In the absence of public institutions, the party created libraries, workers' schools, youth groups, women's groups, sports leagues, and entertainment venues. It was more than a political party-it was a way of life for many workers. They achieved a status of being a mass-party

A denial of cooperation with the Social Democrats would be to isolate and deprive your position, which is what happened, and we can obviously source what happened as the result of this stupidity.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Is that the same as what the poster above you said: non-identical twins?

[Yes I know the different superstructural tactics involved, but structurally speaking, as per my "mystery of fascism" link, both allow private capital property but under heavy state influence and/or control.]

Anyhow, I asked because it's the same dilemma Lenin tried to address painstakingly in Left-Wing Communism. I think this subject is heavily related to the recent threads on the subject of labour unions.


In the absence of public institutions, the party created libraries, workers' schools, youth groups, women's groups, sports leagues, and entertainment venues. It was more than a political party-it was a way of life for many workers.

Interesting that the KPD operated like Hezbollah's social education and health operations...

[Janus]

but apparently it's achieving socialism gradually through peaceful reforms. What's wrong with that?
You mean democratic socialism? I'm sure on the outside that it looks good but it can never achieve anything significant so long as it works within the bourgeois framework.

Also, check out the numerous threads we've had on democratic socialism and reformism. There's one in Learning right now.

[The Grey Blur]

Democratic Socialism is not neccessarily reformism Janus. Though the "democratic" pre-fix is unneccessary, since any true Socialism must be on a democratic basis. In fact, Socialism can be said to be the culmination of Democracy (rule by the people).


Either I'm not getting the whole idea of social-revisionism or I am not meant to be here. Why is it so bad? I've only read about it on the surface like in history books and online sources, but apparently it's achieving socialism gradually through peaceful reforms. What's wrong with that?
I've never heard the term "social revisionism" used before but I believe you are referring to reformism. Reformism as a means to achieve a Socialist society is impossible as the bourgeois state cannot be changed through legislation to a socialist one. "The working class cannot lay hold of the ready-made state machine and wield it for its own purposes" - Marx.

As Delerium said, the ruling class will never give voluntarily give up power and this is the first lesson we can learn from history - the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, the German Revolution all faced vicious and determined opposition from the bourgeois and their hired arms. This goes for all revolutions, throughout history - the ruling class will always employ force to defend their privelige and will always find people willing to carry out their orders - generally the reactionary elements of society.

On the other hand, we cannot take an ultra-left standpoint - we must be in favour of reformism and transitional demands to better the lives of the working-class while simualtaneously pointing out that the Capitalist system can only be reformed so far, that it's problems are incurable unless by means of a revolution. I often see people on these boards pissing and moaning about the working-class organising in unions and pushing for reforms but unless you are out there, fighting side by side with the working-class you cannot gain their respect or trust and thus will not be able to spread the ideas of Communism. An ounce of action is worth a ton of internet *****ing to paraphrase Frederic Engels.

Sorry if i went a bit off topic there, just some people on this board irritate me.


In retrospect, I cannot see why people still argue that Stalin was wrong in regards to fascism and modern social democracy as "twins."
Maybe because it lead to the crushing of the strongest working-class in the world, the German pre-Nazi one. Fascism, unlike social-democracy, eleminates any and all opposition to the state, demolishing even those valuable limited rights which we have won under bourgeois democracy and it's final goal is the elimination of any and all independent working-class organisation. If the KPD had united with the rank-and-file of the SPD rather than swinging wildly from ultra-leftism to reformism so as to navigate the Moscow line the Fascists could have been stopped in their tracks as soon as they showed any signs of threatening the working-class. Which is what the Left Opposition within Germany worked to do and, though limited to areas of local influence, when implemented these tactics worked spectacularly well.