Reform and revolution - New and old lessons

[peaccenicked]

The relationship between reform and revolution is not oppositional. Marxists support reforms, some support only reforms that the capitalists cannot afford, others support all reforms that benefit the working class internationally. Marxists are discriminating in which reforms they support we neither support free trade or protectionism but fair trade between nations.
Revolution can be regarded as as one big reform called the abolition of capitalism.
This is not a bill that can merely passed through parliament, it will be met with the full force of the State.
Reformists know this and meekly step back from the main task on hand. The abolition of capitalism which is the source of all the contradictions in our society. These can be compiled as a list, but at the moment I wish not get into a debate on priority. The ultimate priority of a revolutionary is to end capitalism.
The present day struggle against capitalism is not primarly of a revolutionary nature, it is pre revolutionary.
The Americanisation/Globalisation/Neoliberal project has reached a muddy place that of the polarisation of the countries traditionally ruled by the WASPs and the rest of the world. The Iraqi war/genocide showed how the countries divided up. Many were there through US manipulation.
The current situation divides the left up into reformists and revolutionaries. As communists we do not delineate ourselves from the aims of the reformists but show the great need to go futher than they do.
The lesson that we need to learn in the currrent period is that the reformist/revolutionary distinction is of a background importance despite its significance. It is in our immediate and long term interests to unite all anti- market forces together and under this banner include the anarchists, if the new forces of anarchism can see the need to break with old sectarianism.








(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:45 pm on May 6, 2003)

[The Muckraker]

As someone who has been labelled a reformist in this very forum, I'd like to address this issue.

I, personally, do not believe reformism can work in the long run. As you say, "This is not a bill that can merely passed through parliament, it will be met with the full force of the State." I agree with that.

At the same time, I do not at all see the point in creating more misery in the world, and some purists seem to believe that there is absolutely no difference between the two US parties, which is, of course, ludicrous.

Some things, like the overtime issue I've addressed elsewhere, don't even fall under the rubric of reform, but rather simply maintain the rights the labor movement has won in the past. In no way could that possibly be construed as a "reform" of anything.

The Democrats are bad, but the Republicans are worse by half at least. How anyone in the US who claims to care about the plight of the working class can simply avoid that reality is truly beyond me.

Work for future change, but don't ignore the present reality. I'll come right out and say it: I'd rather have fewer children in poverty today than possibly win a "revolution" 20 years from now. I'd rather have more poor women with access to prenatal care today than a strong party 15 years from now. I'd rather guarantee the rights of the working class today than hope for a better world 10 years from now. I'd rather people have health coverage today than know what Marx said 5 years from now.

I'd rather feed a starving man today than grieve a dead man tomorrow.

Yes, theory must have praxis, but people must also be able to live. The former should not become more important than the latter.

(Edited by The Muckraker at 9:05 am on May 6, 2003)

[peaccenicked]

Thank you for your candour and forthright position, comrade Muckraker.
Firstly, let us remember the old adage, ''politics is the art of the possible.''
The immediacy of reforms, and their limited scope in that they merely tamper with a system which is sick through and through is a condradiction within the reformist approach.
The solution here is not one or another but both.
The revolution will not be served by denying what is not and what is achievable under present day conditions.

The path of reform is not merely to institutute new reforms but increasingly to defend workers from counter reforms instituted in the interests of capitalism.

If we get caught merely in the bloody class war of immediate struggles. Something that we cannot and dare not avoid . If we get caught merely reacting to the capitalist agenda we set aside a bigger agenda a more lasting settlement of the class question: socialism. We move away from a very uneasy class peace to the abolition of classes. We push our own agenda.
It is a war of agendas. The capitalist class has the upper hand it has all the instruments of the State including the privately owned media to push its agenda.
It is not enough to defend our immediate interests that we must do, but declare our own independence as a class ie to impose our own agenda.

The Democrats are a lesser evil than the Republicans, this is true to some extent despite many similarities.
But Socialists should only rally around any mainstream politician who bravely sticks their neck out against imperialist war.
Democracy is not about wasted votes. '' Wasted votes" are about keeping a two party system in tact.
The responsibility to electoral pragmatism causes more damage than it does good as it keeps and serves imperialist mass murdering system in tact.
The doctrine of ''lesser evil'' is still a vote for evil. A vile evil at that.
The votes of socialists must be counted.
This is the most significant thing we can do.
We have to make ourselves and our message significant and not lose it to the machinations of the highly contradictory electoral process which has historically existed to systematically co opt and dupe the working class into accepting the defence mechanisms of capitalist consensus.

There more than one way to skin a cat.

[The Muckraker]

I agree with a lot of what you've written here. Rather than writing it all out again, if you're interested you might want to take a look at the last post on this page (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=799&start=10) where I detail my position a bit more.

In a nutshell, I believe that the proletariat must create its own future, and that won't come through the ballot box. Until that happens, however, I believe it's sheer lunacy not to recognize the differences in the two parties, as I've detailed in that other thread linked above, and vote Democrat. It's not about deceiving yourself into thinking that's all that needs to be done. It's not about thinking that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for the working class. It's about seeing clearly the genuine differences and making sure that the Republicans don't get to impose their very damaging agenda, and I can get into specific things about that more than I did in the other thread.

As I wrote there, why cut off your nose to spite your face?

Redstar2000 doesn't seem to be able to understand what I wrote. I'm hoping that you can.

[redstar2000]

Muckraker, I think I understand your views quite well. You sincerely believe that the Democratic Party is "better" for the working class than the Republican Party and you would like it if we would register and vote Democratic.

Isn't that a fair summary?

Now, here's my view: I don't care if people register and vote or not because I don't think we live in a democracy, in any meaningful sense of the word.

And I think it's lying to people to suggest otherwise. It confers "legitimacy" on the capitalist state machinery...whereas I think it has none whatsoever.

It seems to me that the best way to "help people" is first, tell them the truth.

:cool:

[Kez]

i dont think looking back there was a point in peacenics post that i disagree with.
I think the most important points are:

"The solution here is not one or another but both.
The revolution will not be served by denying what is not and what is achievable under present day conditions."

"The path of reform is not merely to institutute new reforms but increasingly to defend workers from counter reforms instituted in the interests of capitalism."

"It is not enough to defend our immediate interests that we must do, but declare our own independence as a class ie to impose our own agenda."

The difference between Reps and Democrats is quantitative not qualitive, its the same shit, different smell, and we should put any hope to any capitlaist party however liberal or soft they seem. They still work for the upkep of the capitalist state, the state were trying to destroy.

I as a marxist support the progressive reforms, but not for 1 nano-second do i have hope that this reform was for the workers, it is always under pressure from below, from the workers.

One day (near future) this pressure will be too much, and we will have no more capitalism to reform

[The Muckraker]

Yes, Redstar2000, tell them the truth. When Clinton was in office I ruthlessly criticized his capitalist policies. On this we agree.

However, the truth isn't going to put food in your belly.

The truth isn't going to sign the Kyoto treaty.

The truth isn't going to keep radical conservatives out of the Federal judiciary.

I've given very clear examples of how Democrats differ from Republicans on domestic issues, all of which you've ignored because, as you said, you don't care.

Well I care.

In another forum today I posted the poverty figures from last year. 1.6 million more in poverty thanks to Bush's insane economic policies. I know, you don't care.

I do.

That's the difference, Redstar2000.

I see no need for people to suffer more in the short term when they could be suffering less. I don't see, and you've not shown, how more suffering helps the socialist cause. I don't really see how you could, though, for as you've stated repeatedly now, you don't care, you "don't give a shit."

Now, if you've anything more to say than "we have to tell them the truth," if you've anything more to offer than platitudes about "militant class struggle," I'd be interested. So far, though, you've offered only the politics of the negative: it won't work, it doesn't matter, you don't care anyway.

That might work for you personally, but it's a lousy platform for a movement.

[redstar2000]

Yes, Muckrucker, I readily concede that my political outlook is extremely negative.

I really have nothing "positive" to say about late capitalism or its leading public figures at all.

I understand that my "negativism" is wildly at variance with traditional American (bourgeois) "constructive, positive attitudes". To me, that contrast is entirely in order.

The mythology of American thought goes "if you criticize something, then you must put forward a constructive improvement or a positive alternative."

No. It seems to me that communist revolutionaries should be entirely negative about the prevailing capitalist social order...if revolution is our goal.

It's not, after all, as if there will be no ebb and flow of "reforms" and "reformists"...capitalism supplies such things with regularity. But it's not our job.

I know that many disagree with me about this and I'm well aware of the line of argument: if socialists or communists are perceived by the working class as the "best fighters for reforms", then the working class will "trust us" to "lead the revolution".

I'm not interested in being a "leader". I don't think that's our job either.

I have no doubt that in the days of slavery there were people who diligently worked for improvements in the conditions and the treatment of slaves. If my memory serves me, there were even laws passed in the slave states providing for more humane treatment of slaves.

But I identify with the abolitionists. I am a "stiff-necked, cranky extremist" on the issue of capitalism and wage-slavery. I am not interested in velcro chains in designer colors...I am only intrested in smashing the chains altogether.

Perhaps you might respond with an argument along the lines of "Americans will not accept your attitude" or "Americans demand a positive outlook". I daresay you'd be right about that...and I still wouldn't give a shit. I am uninterested in "popularity" or being "acceptable" in that sense...and I think history strongly suggests that people who do have such motivations are inevitably corrupted in the process.

I do think American workers will be receptive to my "negative" attitudes when, and only when, U.S. imperialism suffers a series of catastrophic defeats...when the working class must pay a truly horrible "blood tax" extorted by the ruling class to save its empire.

History strongly suggests that it is unsuccessful imperialist war that most sharply undermines the legitimacy of the capitalist system, that lays the foundation for revolution. And, as I mentioned in other posts, militant class struggle in conditions of capitalist economic crisis have also been very significant.

Without one or, preferably, both of these circumstances, it is "business as usual" in the empire...and the sorts of trivia that you concern yourself with are essentially meaningless. If it makes you feel better to agitate yourself and others around such "issues", go right ahead. If it makes you feel better to believe you are "helping people", fine. I won't argue the matter.

I just have different priorities.

:cool:

[Valkyrie]

i understand what you're saying Muckraker. Bush has got to go. That he is even able to stay out the term is a freaking disaster beyond belief. Where is Squeaky Frome when we need her? ha!

But, I've been turning this over in my head for months now. Do I vote? do I not vote? (I consider myself of the anarchist sort) Do I vote for the lesser evil? Do I vote my conscience? Do I chance to let Bush get back in for another 4 years? It seems when Republicans get in they get an 8 year run. I have no idea what I'm gonna do on that day. I don't trust either of the two parties. I don't trust parties or The State at all.

However, I can agree with you that we can't tell starving & homeless people that they can't eat or have housing until after the revolution. Atleast, I'm not going to do that. I DO do what I can in the meantime, which equal about shit to what all needs to be done. And I know Bush has gotta go.

What a fucked up world this is.

[The Muckraker]

Paris,

I know how you feel. If you've read the other thread (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=799) about this same issue, in which Redstar2000 explains that he doens't care at all about the genuine suffering of people, you'll see why I think I'm done talking to him about this. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

But let's take his slavery example. Suppose you are an abilitionist, with the right to vote, and you have a chance to vote for a law that requires the humane treatment of slaves. Why on earth wouldn't you vote for it? Voting for that law doesn't mean that you stop your work as an abolitionist, but it very well may mean fewer beaten slaves before you achieve your goal. I've asked Redstar2000 over and over how that would be a bad thing, but he just says that he doesn't care. In this example, his repulsion for the system that allows slavery results not in the freedom of slaves but only permits them to be beaten. Somehow, he sees that as noble.

I see it as foolish.

The arrogance of such a position rivals that of Bush himself. While it's all well and good to rant about the "system" and say that bourgeois politics doesn't work, but when Medicaid is cut, people suffer. That's not speculation, that's not philosophy, that's a material fact in this world, and right now this world is all we have.

Just as with the slavery example, voting for a Democrat might be personally difficult, but you seem to understand that the Republicans are far worse.

I'm not saying forget about building a socialist society, and I've never said that. I'm not saying rely on bourgeois politicians to take care of us, and I've never said that. What I'm saying is look at the honest and real differences between the two parties, which are the only two parties that can win on a national level, understand that this is the world we have to live in, and make the rational choice. That's just common sense, not "counter-revolutionary." Just like the abolitionist doesn't have to stop working for abolition, we don't have to stop doing whatever it is we do. But we must realize that on many macroeconomic issues the ballot box is the ONLY access we have. Not to use it, as I've said before, is to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

[Valkyrie]

Thanks Muckraker for the link, I read through the thread.

I have to say at this point it may very well be a smart socialist stretegic move to do whatever is possible to ensure that Bush and his minions get out. We've seen the sustained repression he is capable of unflagging on the world with impunity and in a minimal amount of time. The potential of another 12 years of Republican aggression, like or worse than the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush era could completely undermine and destroy virtually all sovereign nations or atleast their resources to the point of impotency; and playing with people's lives is not a game. in that regard, I don't see the issue as an abstract either.
if i voted my pure ideological belief I would not be voting.. but on the other hand, those problems do exist, and the very real potential of Bush and his lackeys
in power until 2012 is not conducive to anyone or even likely something that would open a fissure toward revolution. Such is the sentiment lacking among those living in a Corporate-headed Capitalist first world- the aggrieved discontent and hopelessness that is neccessary to propel a move toward that extent, especially in the face of severe reprisal. They still see the dangling carrot.

But, Yeah, I do see the logic in what you're saying by keep the more benign enemy at bay, while planning our revolution, without in the interim allowing such total slaughter of those ideals and people we are fighting for. I don't see that as incompatible or betraying any socialist beliefs because as you said, a third party is not going to win the next election... but George Bush sure could. That is the betrayal right there.

[canikickit]

, and the very real potential of Bush and his lackeys
in power until 2012 is not conducive to anyone or even likely something that would open a fissure toward revolution.

I thought that the US president could only stand for two terms, of four years each?

[Dirty Commie]

Then comes jeb, cheney, rummy, asscroft, powell, and so forth, all they need is one rigged election after another.

[rAW DEaL bILL]

on the whole democrat vs republican thing what i have to say is there ARE no true democrats. there is no democracy. only the greeks acomplished that. on the governmental level of things im looking for an entire abolition of governmental hierarchy altogether. in a sence, true democracy. a democracy in which everyone has an equal say in the government. bush sure as hell does need to get out but i think ANY president should be done away with. executive power always corrupts and it needs ot be done away with simply because human beings are incapable of being good enough to withstand the temptations of power. im not saying this is at all possible any time soon and i think the first step to take would be to have a few very left democrats in office, leaning more to the left every time. as for the first step towards socialism i think that would be to, as redstar said, have a very unsuccesfull imperialist war, or any war for that matter. after that to have much of the power taken away from the rich so eventualy they wont mind having their wealth taken away. i consider myself a revolutionary, not a reformist, because i truly believe that unfortunately in this day in age violence is simply the only way to get a democratic-anarchist commune. however i also belive that an all out war right away is ubsurd reforming needs to take place before revolution.

[peaccenicked]

The issue as to reform and revolution is not either or but both. It is not an issue about acceptability,popularity
or leadership. It is an issue that asks the question:What is in the interests of the working class?
It maybe that it is in the apparent interests of the working class to vote Democrat against the Republicans but that has to be looked at more squarely in the face. What was Clinton's record on imperialism?
Why vote for imperialism if you are a dedicated anti imperialist.
One has to put one's head above the paripet and vote for an anti imperialist canditate, even if this allows in Bush, who incidently rigged the last two elections.
The voice of indepedent working class thinkers has to be clearly heard.
The electoral road is a fraud at the best of times, Bourgeois democracy is the best democracy money can buy.
Our task is to promote revolution, this means promoting reforms that benefit the working class, more good things social and material for the working class. This means challenging cuts in the welfare of workers. Challenging job cuts. It is not a matter of gaining leadership but building trust between workers and socialists.
It is a matter of saying "This is what I think it needs to win this battles, lobbying, strikes, solidarity actions, whatever it takes. If that can be agreed maybe we can start winning some battles.
Revolution is not a day that we all turn up to take power. It is a series of battles in which all sections of our class gain confidence in themselves and each other and leave it impossible for society to be ruled in the old way.