Revolution - why is it the way (as opposed to reformism)

[Pogue]

Title says it, why revolution and not reform?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Because reform doesn't work comrade. All of the best "reforms" have come from massive revolutionary activity. Those reforms are cut back the moment mass activity takes a dip. We can and should fight for reforms to ease our everyday lives and to build class confidence, but this is part of the process of eventual revolution. The only way to secure a free and equal society is revolution.

[Dr Mindbender]

because reform is still capitalism.

That was easy. :confused:

[Hit The North]

Not all great reforms are the result of massive revolutionary activity. The British Welfare State, which represented a real material improvement in the lives of the British working class was the result of a (particularly vague) threat of revolutionary activity. It was pushed through by an extremely reformist Labour Government with cross-party support and it was only the right of the Conservative Party (and the top rank of medical professionals) who opposed it. The capitalist class, battered and bankrupt after the second world war were powerless to oppose the pressure coming from the reformist leaders of organised labour. But apart from a few token reformist-organised demonstrations, workers did not have to take to the streets. In fact, it was the landslide electoral victory of the Labour Party which convinced many members of the establishment to concede (at least for the time being) to the demands for free healthcare, free education and (almost) decent compensation for unemployment.

[Red_or_Dead]

Title says it, why revolution and not reform?


Well, to put it simply:

Reformism seeks to achieve the same goals as we do, within the framework of the current system.

We think that that is not possible, because the system is set against such progression. We cannot persuade the privileged to give up their privileges.

Thats why we have to take their privileges away with force.

[Dros]

We leave in a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The state exists for the sole purpose of enforcing the interests of the ruling class. Thus, "democracy 'and reform are possible only insofar as they serve the present interests of the ruling class. As long as the ruling class is the Bourgeoisie, the state will be reactionary. The only way to establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is by totally smashing the current bourgeois apparatus.

[Pogue]

We leave in a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The state exists for the sole purpose of enforcing the interests of the ruling class. Thus, "democracy 'and reform are possible only insofar as they serve the present interests of the ruling class. As long as the ruling class is the Bourgeoisie, the state will be reactionary. The only way to establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is by totally smashing the current bourgeois apparatus.

Comrade, I have always had problems with such claims, perhaps you'll be the one to sort them out for me. I have trouble stomaching that this system is specifically anything, such as a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie', a name which infers that the bourgeoisie are all in it together in control, and that any of our means of change fall under their umbrella of control. Please prove this to me, prove to me that everything, like parliament, where reformism takes place, prove to me these things are part of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, then I will have greater understanding and belief in revolutionary socialism.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Comrade, I have always had problems with such claims, perhaps you'll be the one to sort them out for me. I have trouble stomaching that this system is specifically anything, such as a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie', a name which infers that the bourgeoisie are all in it together in control, and that any of our means of change fall under their umbrella of control. Please prove this to me, prove to me that everything, like parliament, where reformism takes place, prove to me these things are part of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, then I will have greater understanding and belief in revolutionary socialism.

Well, every single attempt to bring about socialism through parliamentary procedure has failed really really miserably. The Labour party lobbied against general strikes a mere 26 years after its founding. Reformism just doesn't work.

[spartan]

Comrade, I have always had problems with such claims, perhaps you'll be the one to sort them out for me. I have trouble stomaching that this system is specifically anything, such as a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie', a name which infers that the bourgeoisie are all in it together in control, and that any of our means of change fall under their umbrella of control. Please prove this to me, prove to me that everything, like parliament, where reformism takes place, prove to me these things are part of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, then I will have greater understanding and belief in revolutionary socialism.

Like someone said before the reason the British welfare state became a reality was not due to mass action but the utter powerlessness of the bankrupt British ruling class after WW2 and the sweeping victory of the reformist Labour party (Which alone convinced the ruling class that they had to concede to obviously popular demands, as seen by Labour's overwhelming victory in the general election, or potentially face mass opposition).

Of course this was also during the time of economic rebuilding (Where Keynesian economics, centralisation and nationalisation all seemed like sensible ideas to quickly rebuild the shattered economies of the post-war Capitalist west) and cold war where the threat of Soviet Communism forced the Capitalist west to compromise with there workers (Hence why we have the welfare state in Britain and Germany and Scandinavia had/have their social market economies).

Now that the cold war and the threat of Soviet Communism is over the Capitalist west has embraced free market economic policies (As dictated by the now emboldened Bourgeoisie) and are dismantling our hard fought for welfare states and making our elected legislative and executive bodies mere rubber stamp men for all there demands.

Of course not all Bourgeoisie are in it together as they are more often than not competing against each other (Dont go thinking this is some freemason shit or whatever), but one thing is certain none of them truly lose out when competing with each other only the workers lose out and end up suffering for it. We are their pawns which they use however the hell they like in there power struggles.

If you think that in our time of global Capitalism with no threat of a Socialist superpower that we can get into parliament and reform this state back to how it used to be in it's Keynesian heyday then i am sorry to say but you are sadly mistaken.

Reformism seems an attractive prospect for some Socialists as it isnt as stigmatised and gains wider acceptance in the political mainstream as Socialism or Communism is (Apart from America of course where even Social Liberalism will land you with the tag of "Commie"), but that doesn't make it the best way of getting from Capitalism to Socialism (Far from it in fact as the mere fact that it is accepted by the political mainstream shows it's true un-Socialist colours as no one in any Capitalist political establishment would ever support the disfranchise of themselves).

[trivas7]

Comrade, I have always had problems with such claims, perhaps you'll be the one to sort them out for me. I have trouble stomaching that this system is specifically anything, such as a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie', a name which infers that the bourgeoisie are all in it together in control, and that any of our means of change fall under their umbrella of control. Please prove this to me, prove to me that everything, like parliament, where reformism takes place, prove to me these things are part of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, then I will have greater understanding and belief in revolutionary socialism.
Follow the money.


After the implementation of neoliberal policies in the late 1970s, the share of the national income of the top 1 per cent of income earners in the US soared, to reach 15 per cent by the end of he century. The top 0.1 per cent of income earners in the US increased their share of the national income form 2 per cent in 1978 to over 6 per cent by 1999, while the ratio of the median compensation of workers to the salaries of CEOs increased from just over 30 to 1 in 1970 to nearly 500 to 1 by 2000.[...]

The US is not alone in this: the top 1 per cent of income earners in Britiain have doubled their share of the national income from 6.5 per cent to 13 per cent since 1982. And when we look further afield we see extraordinary concentrations of wealth and power emerging all over the place.
-- David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism

[KurtFF8]

I agree with the other members that revolution is the way to go, as reform only leads to living under the current system (see Sweden, the more reformist movement there was and they still live under a system of capitalism and exploitation).

However I do see the "revolution vs reform" debate as another case of a false dichotomy. Many of those on the left who seek reform do indeed see it as an alternative to revolution, but at the same time many revolutionaries see reform as a tactic that could be used in the process of revolutionary activity. I think that capturing the apparatus of the current capitalist state serves a purpose and could be useful and that the left should not give up on reform completely. After all, any action that can make the lives of the working class better until we can establish a socialist economy is progressing toward the right direction in my opinion.

[JazzRemington]

Not only that, but reforms are a rather temporary solution to a permanent problem. In France, Nicolas Sarkozy attempted (not sure if he actually did successfully) to remove the workday restrictions and minimum wage laws that were hard fought to implement. It takes more effort to implement reforms than it does to do away with them, because the bourgeoisie have the upper hand, and the money.

[Dros]

Comrade, I have always had problems with such claims, perhaps you'll be the one to sort them out for me. I have trouble stomaching that this system is specifically anything, such as a 'dictatorship of the bourgeoisie', a name which infers that the bourgeoisie are all in it together in control, and that any of our means of change fall under their umbrella of control. Please prove this to me, prove to me that everything, like parliament, where reformism takes place, prove to me these things are part of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, then I will have greater understanding and belief in revolutionary socialism.

I just wrote a long response to this and the board ate it.

ERRGHHH!!!!!!!!! $#@^%&^

I will return to these important concerns tomorrow...:cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing::ma d::mad::mad:

[OI OI OI]

1) Reformism does not attack the root of the problem which is private property. As long as private property exists then the laws of the market apply on any given society. And when the laws of the market apply with their booms and busts then on the busts precicely all the reforms which were won by the proletariat during the booms are going to be attacked for obvious reasons . We have seen this trend before , we see it now just before our eyes and we will see it in the future. To deny this will not only be anti-scientific but it would be reactionary. Reforms are only secure under the dictatorship of the proletariat. All other reforms ar eonly temporary.

2) Another time where the ruling class grants reforms is in a revolutionary situation. If you have studied history you would have seen that when czarism was in jeopardy in 1905 it granted the reform of the October Manifesto. When the revolution was crushed the reforms in the October Manifesto simply dissapeared from the agenda. Of course the October Manifesto did not divide the working class into reformists and revolutionaries (divide and rule) as the regime expected. But nontheless it was intended for exactly that reason. So again we see how reformism is counter-revolutionary (divides the movement , leads to defeat and massacre of the working class) . It has been used by the ruling class numerus other times.

I will not spend much more time on this. Revleft cannot answer all your questions in depth. That's why you should strive in order to educate yourself.
I would reccomend the new book by Alan Woods "Reformism or Revolution (http://www.marxist.com/reformism-or-revolution-out-now.htm)" which will answer all your questions in depth.

[ChristianV777]

The history of reformism shows exactly why it doesn't work. It can get some gains for people, and making peoples' lives a little bit easier in this system is always a positive, because we want people to suffer as little as possible.
But, the State will never give you anything. It is the people, organized, fighting, resisiting that has brought about all the positives we see. It is the mass action of the people that brings any changes. No one has given us anything for free. People have died to get us the rights we do have, rights which are being taken away....by Social Democrats, by Labour, by Democrats, not just by Conservatives and neocons.
But, there will always come a limit. Ask the rich to give up their wealth and share equally with everyone. Ask the landlords to give up their stolen land so that everyone can have land of their own. Ask the police to let the hungry man take the food he needs from the store when he doesn't have the money. Ask government to go away and leave us alone and let us live our lives. Then, you'll see that reform can only take us so far before we hit a brick wall.
The State must at times negotiate with the people. I look at the State as representing Order (what is perceived as Order, I mean). The State's purpose is to maintain the status quo, and if they must give in to demands to protect the status quo, that is what the State will do, because the opposite is Revolution (seen as disorder by the elites). Not all the bourgeois have the same interests, but their common interest is to maintain the Capitalist system, which enriches the few at the expense of the many and forces people to work against their will for some profit or die.

[Pogue]

As comrades have mentioned, surely then a mixture of both is neccesary? If there was a popular uprising against the capitalists, I'd be fully supportive of it, but I'd also be fully supportive of a left wing party's campaign for election to parliament.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

As comrades have mentioned, surely then a mixture of both is neccesary? If there was a popular uprising against the capitalists, I'd be fully supportive of it, but I'd also be fully supportive of a left wing party's campaign for election to parliament.


Parliament is a hall of concentrated power. You can't expect a party to take control and then implement any kind of real democratic socialism. By fact of having that concentrated power, they will do what's in their best interest. That usually means helping out the capitalists as any kind of mass movement threatens their position as a parliamentarian and as a leader of "the movement." If capitalists don't corrupt them, unhelpful politicians are usually wiped out by a better armed section of the capitalist class ie the army.

Effort spent on electing candidates is a waste of time. Holding political power by its nature turns you against working class revolution and the working class. Its much better to spend our time and money building mass power and confidence. That kind of power is what influences the capitalists anyway.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Because it's not coiming.

Oh wait, that was the other way around....

[KurtFF8]

Parliament is a hall of concentrated power. You can't expect a party to take control and then implement any kind of real democratic socialism. By fact of having that concentrated power, they will do what's in their best interest. That usually means helping out the capitalists as any kind of mass movement threatens their position as a parliamentarian and as a leader of "the movement." If capitalists don't corrupt them, unhelpful politicians are usually wiped out by a better armed section of the capitalist class ie the army.

Effort spent on electing candidates is a waste of time. Holding political power by its nature turns you against working class revolution and the working class. Its much better to spend our time and money building mass power and confidence. That kind of power is what influences the capitalists anyway.

And this is exactly why the reformist strategy can't alone help us reach socialism. But I do think that it can help by doing things like raising consciousness while at the same time showing that while even taking over the state, it is the economic system itself that needs to be transformed.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

And this is exactly why the reformist strategy can't alone help us reach socialism. But I do think that it can help by doing things like raising consciousness while at the same time showing that while even taking over the state, it is the economic system itself that needs to be transformed.

This is exactly why electoralism is a waste of time. It takes a lot of resources to elect politicians, and those resources are better spent building mass support and confidence for direct action, which actually will solve the problem or at least act as a form of radical lobbying, convincing the state to puke out reforms. Outside of local offices, we have little chance of putting forth revolutionary candidates. And even at local office level, a revolutionary type could last at the most, one term. That is if he/she doesn't become a reformist or get impeached or indicted. And all the while the prospective candidate is perpetually compromised by their position as a state agent, able to do only what the state allows them,very little, and continuously tempted to sell out for greater "effectiveness."

[Die Neue Zeit]

Don't put too much stock into "direct action":

The revolutionary strategy of centrists (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/620/macnair.htm)
Revolutionary "centrism" and patience? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-centrism-and-t84900/index.html)

[freakazoid]

Reform only passifies the people. Once the capitalists give us a few scraps from the table then we become happy with that, instead of taking the table from them.

[el_chavista]

If reformists use taxes to increase social care they'll need "richer rich people" for that matter.

[KurtFF8]

This is exactly why electoralism is a waste of time. It takes a lot of resources to elect politicians, and those resources are better spent building mass support and confidence for direct action, which actually will solve the problem or at least act as a form of radical lobbying, convincing the state to puke out reforms. Outside of local offices, we have little chance of putting forth revolutionary candidates. And even at local office level, a revolutionary type could last at the most, one term. That is if he/she doesn't become a reformist or get impeached or indicted. And all the while the prospective candidate is perpetually compromised by their position as a state agent, able to do only what the state allows them,very little, and continuously tempted to sell out for greater "effectiveness."

But those resources spent on direct action generally amount to the same types of things that could be accomplished through taking some of the power of the state. (Unless of course you're talking about revolutionary action).

I mean look at Chavez for example, whether you agree with him or not, he has shown that there can be some progress made through taking the power of the state, especially when you have that much support.


Reform only passifies the people. Once the capitalists give us a few scraps from the table then we become happy with that, instead of taking the table from them.

But to completely abandon it can be equally as harmful. Take the US for example, in the 40s to the 60s there was plenty of reform going on that helped the working class. The left was divided and much of it saw it pointless to continue working to capture the power of the state. Since then there has been a monopoly of power by the right in America, undoing all progress made by the left. And the problem is that we aren't quite at a point of a revolution (understatement) so in the mean time we have to sit with less benefits to working people. But this goes to the argument of "is reformism a form of gradualism"

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

But those resources spent on direct action generally amount to the same types of things that could be accomplished through taking some of the power of the state. (Unless of course you're talking about revolutionary action).

What? There's no evidence of this at all. State's don't garner pay raises, or un evict people. Direct action brings potent results becuase it goes to the point of production of the problem.


I mean look at Chavez for example, whether you agree with him or not, he has shown that there can be some progress made through taking the power of the state, especially when you have that much support.

Chavez is a social democrat. He's used oil revenue to provide some programs for the poor. This is evidence that the ruling class in Venezuela wants to restructure native capitalism, it is not evidence of any real change. There's no real "bolivaran revolution" its a shell game.






But to completely abandon it can be equally as harmful. Take the US for example, in the 40s to the 60s there was plenty of reform going on that helped the working class. The left was divided and much of it saw it pointless to continue working to capture the power of the state. Since then there has been a monopoly of power by the right in America, undoing all progress made by the left. And the problem is that we aren't quite at a point of a revolution (understatement) so in the mean time we have to sit with less benefits to working people. But this goes to the argument of "is reformism a form of gradualism"

The 40s and 60s brought change becuase soldiers were deserting, workers were striking, and oppressed groups were revolting. Reform came as a reaction to these calamities. It sought to re legitimize the state and capitalism.

The monopoly of power from the right is a result of capital's offensive on working people, and the left's inability to fightback, as it was handicapped by repression and cooptation. State power had nothing to do with it. The Reagan revolution took place under a democratic congress. Jimmy Carter did as much to deregulate industry as the New Right. Left of capital is still capital comrade.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The "left of bourgeois capital," to be precise...

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

^^^ The "left of bourgeois capital," to be precise...

Indeed, but I like to avoid that word. Its hard to spell, and most working people don't know what it means and get annoyed. Plus I find it redundant. Capital is a long enough conversation on its own. Whenever you're talking politics in an organizing fashion I always try to follow Orwell's model. Keep it clear, simple, and low on syllables.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Because it seems more romantic.

[Winter]

Title says it, why revolution and not reform?

The system is not built to bring about actual change. Change is something that can only come about from outside the system. As long as the corporate overlords and politically elite are the first to decide for us, we will never be able to establish a society free of class and disunity.

The elite want us to be seperated and not feel a thread of solidarity for our fellow man. Why? Because it is only through mass organization can we even begin to ponder the idea of a revolution over reform.

[Drink Activist]

Change is something that can only come about from outside the system.
I think and believe that change is possible also from inside the system in case of radical and legal change of people who make it. On example in democracy when there are left wing politics governing and we choose in voting right wing politics the change will come form inside of system which are all people who agree it and take part in voting.


The elite want us to be seperated and not feel a thread of solidarity for our fellow man. Why? Because it is only through mass organization can we even begin to ponder the idea of a revolution over reform.
It's simple. As I see situation around me, government and elites let proletaries organisate to the moment when they can control all the situation. Then they use media and police to shut up their mouth and let the society forget about everything.

[Winter]

I think and believe that change is possible also from inside the system in case of radical and legal change of people who make it. On example in democracy when there are left wing politics governing and we choose in voting right wing politics the change will come form inside of system which are all people who agree it and take part in voting.

I notice you live in Europe. Things there are alot more left as opposed to here in the U.S. where both parties represent free-market right-wing ideaolgies. I would be happy if things moved that direction here, but it doesn't seem like it's going to happen anytime soon. I really don't think we have a choice here in the U.S., revolution is the only solution. ( ha, it rhymes )


It's simple. As I see situation around me, government and elites let proletaries organisate to the moment when they can control all the situation. Then they use media and police to shut up their mouth and let the society forget about everything.

Here in the U.S. our civil liberties are being eroded on a daily basis. There's certain areas designated as "free speech zones" as if we don't have freedom of speech everywhere. Cherish the fact that you can rally and organize because you never know when you will lose that natural right. Media is a problem everywhere, but our media is the worse, for instance, we never hear about news from a Palestinian perspective. So all the sheep here in the U.S. assume that Israel is a victim. Crazy stuff.