why reformism dosn't lead to socialism?

[eremon]

I see that the last 15 years all the democratic socialist parties like labour Party in Britain or the socialist Party in France or the democratic socialist party in my country in Greece, PASOK, have gradually got rid of their political aim at achieving socialism through parliamentarism and instead, they have adopted the neo-liberal doctrine or the so-called 'Third Way'.

way is this has happened?
why socialism through reformism is impossible? an outopian?

I think is an significant issue since the part of the working class that vote them are disillusioned, and i believe that we need an adequate explanation based on the questions i have posed in order to convinced them to join a revolutionary party or to explain them why the only way to socialism is through revolution.

it would be great to have an in depth answer about it by the experienced combrades o this forum.

[Vargha Poralli]

Reforms should be taken as an means to ends. Not as an solution. The problem exactl;y lies here.

Most of the reforms were in place because we have fought for those reforms.

Women didn't have right to vote in major western countries for a long time. They got it not because of benevolence of Politicians but because they fought for it.

Jim Crow laws are repealed in US not because of benevolence of US government but because of Black People's fight against it.

Untouchablity is not criminalised in India not because of the benevolence of High Caste people. It was because of the fight of Dalits to criminalise it.

Socialism is not an utopia that is going to appear from no where suddenly. It is a thing that must be fought for.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:06 am
way is this has happened?
why socialism through reformism is impossible? an outopian?
Neoliberalism is the liberalism of the 19th and early 20th century. All profits go to the capitalists, economic growth is not in the advantage of the workers. The gains of the working class are attacked in order to stimulate economic growth.
In such a situation reforms are impossible.

Why is it then that during the economic boom of the post war era reforms were possible? And why is it that even in the late 19thand early 20th century certain reforms were also possible?

In the periode from 1848 untill 1914 we had certain revolutions. On of them is the revolution of 1848, which affected many Europena countries except Brittain, Belgium, Holland, etc. But this period of violent revolutions haunted the bourgeoisie and they were willing to accept certain small reforms in order to calm the masses and integrate the socialist parties in capitalist society. This integration (from +/- 1850-85 till 1991) is called the negative integration. Negative because in the beginning the socialst parties and the socialist trade unions were still defenders of the working class.

From 1917/18 till 1939 small reforms were also possible because of the threat of the Soviet Union and the violent revolution just after the Great War.
The integration of the socialist parties fastened during and after World War One, but new communist parties were created to counter this effect.

After World War Two Europe and the united States felt the effects of an economic boom. The enormous economic growth and the threat of the victorious Soviet-Union made it possible for the bourgois social-democrats to demand some reforms. The Wellfare state was created. Liberalism showed a friendly face, but on as long as both factor (the SU and the economic growth) were available.

The crisis of the seventies and eighties (1973/74 - 1995) gave birth to neoliberalism. Neoliberalism was not only politics and economics, but it was also an ideological attack on the working class after the implosion of the Soviet-Union and the capitalists reforms in China. Neoliberaism is the real face of liberalism and reforms are out of the question. Also in this period social-democrats have finished the integration in the capitalists society. There is no difference between liberal-democrats and social-democrats today.

Various new parties are created because of this, and sometimes succeed at stealing votes from the old socialist parties. Examples are P-SOL in Brazil or the SP in Holland. But without a revolutionary core, a revolutionary lef wing, these parties will also integrate into the bourgeois system and become neoliberal parties.

[mikelepore]

The idea of certain reforms being steps in the direction of socialism is generally associated with those whose concept of socialism is to have the existing government absorb industry. For example, as the government now owns the school and library and the highway department, they would like to add the factory and mine and mill to those things the government owns. If someone considers that to be socialism, that is something that reforms can move toward.

However, there are some of us to believe that the transition from capitalism to socialism has to be a matter of switching over to a completely different set of social relationships, where the old management would get kicked out abruptly, the paper money would become worthless, etc. Social problems would go away, not by adding solutions for them, but simply by ceasing to have a set of institutions that continuously creates them. To those of us who feel this way, reform objectives are distracting suggestions to mend the very thing that needs to be scrapped. If you were on your way to discard a junk car at the dump, why would you pause along the way to get it painted? To do so would only indicate confusion, and spread confusion, about what goal you profess.

The single most important lesson that the working class needs to be learn is that capitalism is the primary cause of all social problems, and that no amount of cosmetic patchwork can alter this fact. Any plank or demand in a political program, however "progressive", that distracts the attention of the audience from this main lesson may be doing more harm than good.

[BobKKKindle$]

why socialism through reformism is impossible? an outopian?

Simple; The ruling class will not relinquish control of their property, and the political power that they are able to derive from that property, without some form of armed struggle or conflict. This means that changing the socio-economic system and destroying the class divisions and antagonisms that exist under Capitalism cannot take place within the framework of existing political institutions and processes, only through class struggle. Historically, when elected leaders have posed a challenge to the bourgeoisie, they have been overthrown, often with the support of foreign imperialist powers, for example - Salvador Allende of Chile.

Giving up the objective of revolution has resulted in the disintegration of the links between many parties and their working-class base - these parties no longer reflect the demands of ordinary people because they have become isolated from radical working-class struggles.

Raccoon is correct in saying that capitalism is no longer capable of ensuring a basic degree of welfare and security - reforms of this type are only short-term, and the provision of welfare is also reduced during periods of economic depression when the bourgeoisie face the problem of falling profit rates.

[Severian]

Originally posted by mikelepore+August 27, 2007 03:03 pm--> (mikelepore @ August 27, 2007 03:03 pm) The idea of certain reforms being steps in the direction of socialism is generally associated with those whose concept of socialism is to have the existing government absorb industry. For example, as the government now owns the school and library and the highway department, they would like to add the factory and mine and mill to those things the government owns. If someone considers that to be socialism, that is something that reforms can move toward. [/b]
Yeah....but I think at one time that was claimed to be a road to a totally different kind of society.

So why was that impossible? For one thing, when the capitalist state owns all that stuff, it remains under the control of the capitalist class, through their state.

Even if people who call themselves "socialists" or even "Communists" hold political office in that state - its bureaucracy, its permanent machinery, remains at the command of the rich.

And the social-democrats pretty soon gave up on nationalizing the whole of capitalist industry. They just nationalized some major pieces of it, while the majority kept operating as before.

Under pressure from below, some large social-welfare programs were implemented. But they are dependent on the overall capitalist economy, capitalist production. So when the world capitalist economy began to slow in the 70s, it got harder to afford the social programs.


Raccoon
The gains of the working class are attacked in order to stimulate economic growth.
In such a situation reforms are impossible.

What, all reforms? Impossible? If you make categorical declarations like that, you can easily end up looking silly when some limited concessions to the working class are made.

Which they are: even in the U.S., the minimum wage was raised recently, prescription drug benefits were added to Medicare a few years back, etc.

Worse, if you say that nothing whatsoever can be wrung from the ruling class, it tends to discourage struggle.

It is struggle, above all, that produces concessions from the bosses to the workers - unfortunately that's missing or downplayed too much in your account of why reforms have been granted in the past.

The overall trend is to take back from the working class; you're right about that. And the social-democrats are part of that bosses' offensive - that's why they don't pretend to represent a gradual road to socialism anymore, instead they're rolling things back towards a less limited, more rapacious capitalism.

Now, what changed in the mid-70s? First, capitalism ran into economic trouble. Signalled by the 74-75 world economic recession. Growth in the advanced capitalist countries since then has been slow; they can't easily afford even the existing standard of living of workers.

The bosses went on the offensive for this reason; and they met little resistance.

That's the second reason for the rollback of reforms: the working class didn't put up much of a fight. Our unions and other organizations were weakened by the decades of class-collaboration during periods of prosperity, especially since WWII.

That political obstacle still has to be overcome.