Should capitalism be tamed or exacerbated before the revolution?

[GPDP]

Hello, this is my first time posting in this site. I've been lurking for a while, though. So, yeah.

Anyway, what I mean by my question is, should we, as socialists, promote Keynesian and Social Democratic reforms so as to tame capitalism and empower workers as a prelude to revolution (while continuing to agitate and organize and spread propaganda, of course), or does such an attempt to rebuild the welfare state only lead to the masses conforming to the system instead of revolting against it?

I ask this because Parecon co-founder Robin Hahnel said something to this effect in one of his books, basically recommending that we implement full Keynesianism as part of the process of moving from the "economics of competition and greed" to the "economics of equitable cooperation", as he called capitalism and a decentralized, egalitarian economy such as his own Parecon, respectively. I believe Chomsky has expressed similar sentiments, but I could be wrong. In any case, this sounds like a case of prioritizing the demise of capitalism before the state, without actually calling for a Leninist worker's state. It almost sounds reformist in nature...

As an anarchist, I can't quite decide if this is a good idea or not. Despite my feelings on the state, I realize that a welfare state is better than both a libertarian minimal state and a fascist totalitarian state, as the later two either let the capitalists exploit us, or help them actively to do so. But what would happen to this welfare state come revolution time? Would it turn fascist itself? Hell, would revolution even come about in these terms? Or is it more likely to happen under more repressive, laissez-fair conditions?

Any thoughts?

[BobKKKindle$]

Welcome to the board! The Trotskyist approach to the issue of reforms within the framework of the existing system is based on the concept of the transitional demand. This is a demand which, if implemented fully, would not result in the abolition of capitalism, but is something that capitalism is not willing or is not able to provide, because of the practical constraints inherent within the system. For example, theoretically, full employment could exist under capitalism, but is unlikely that a government would ever be able to meet this demand, because capital is dependent on the unemployed to maintain downwards pressure on wages and discourage aggressive pay demands, and firms are constantly looking for ways to reduce the number of workers they employ so they are able to sell products at a lower price. Hence, full employment is a transitional demand.

Transitional demands are useful because they expose the failure of capitalism to meet the needs of ordinary people - and so creates a link between the ultimate objective of a socialist society, and the present condition of the working class.

This means that Trotskyists call for the defense of the welfare state (as an important historic advance won by the working class) but at the same time make transitional demands to expose the inability of the welfare state to fully eliminate the material hardship suffered by the working class.

There is more on this concept here: The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#op)

[Q]

Welcome :)

While we should oppose the welfare state as the "final solution" as it will always be under attack by capitalist logic of maximizing profits, to fight for the welfare state is a completely different thing. This fight requires a huge amount of class struggle and thusly will raise class consciousness. In so far we agree with the reformist fight. Where we differ is that we don't programmatically stop there but link the day to day fight for improvements with the need for overthrowing capitalism and building a socialist alternative.

Where reformism stops because it is afraid of losing control over the masses, we go further and attack the reformist structures where they stop being useful and become a break on the movement.

If we only bring forward the need for revolution without linking that to the daily fight for improvements, the chances of slipping into sectarian logic becomes a viable threat. The objective need to overthrow capitalism may be apparent, but the subjective factor of class consciousness defines our "playing ground" so to say. We have to link up with the masses, not the other way around.

[GPDP]

Ah, yes. I believe that is what I was referring to when I said that Chomsky said something to that effect. If I remember correctly, he stated that the welfare state should be defended, not only to protect the people from the harsh effects of capitalism, but also to expose the limits of the state to those same people. Something like that, at least. I'll have to go look for the exact quote or passage or whatever.

So, basically, critical support for the welfare state, then.

[Demogorgon]

Yes, we should take what we can. For two reasons. One is that, at the end of the day we have to live under capitalism for the time being, and our lives would be an utter misery if capitalism is left untamed.

The other reason is that, historically speaking, the more changes that are achieved, the more changes that are further demanded. That can be the route to revolution.

[Kropotesta]

This is a toughie. Yes, as we live under capitalism and want to beable to enjoy ourselves to the fullest extent. Howerver, this could delay the revolution and promote apathy among the working class, as we could just accept the way things are by default.

[rouchambeau]

I think reforms are okay, so long as they actually empower and enlighten the working class rather than pacify it under capitalism.

Herbert Marcuse makes a good case for this attitude toward reforms in his book One Dimensional Man.

[Svante]

the workin g class as you say mus t be organise. who i s going to do this? people from avery country and city must organise labour. i n different places there are work stop but notheing were labour stop averywhere i n the country. Labour must b e organise t o be strong. i n Québec people with jobs think there lucky to have work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Welcome to the board! The Trotskyist approach to the issue of reforms within the framework of the existing system is based on the concept of the transitional demand. This is a demand which, if implemented fully, would not result in the abolition of capitalism, but is something that capitalism is not willing or is not able to provide, because of the practical constraints inherent within the system. For example, theoretically, full employment could exist under capitalism, but is unlikely that a government would ever be able to meet this demand, because capital is dependent on the unemployed to maintain downwards pressure on wages and discourage aggressive pay demands, and firms are constantly looking for ways to reduce the number of workers they employ so they are able to sell products at a lower price. Hence, full employment is a transitional demand.

Transitional demands are useful because they expose the failure of capitalism to meet the needs of ordinary people - and so creates a link between the ultimate objective of a socialist society, and the present condition of the working class.

This means that Trotskyists call for the defense of the welfare state (as an important historic advance won by the working class) but at the same time make transitional demands to expose the inability of the welfare state to fully eliminate the material hardship suffered by the working class.

There is more on this concept here: The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#op)

Sorry, BK:

Program of a New Type: Dynamic Minimum-Reformist-Revolutionary (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1152754&postcount=10)