Reformists role in a revolution

[534634634265]

why does the far left summarily dismiss reformists as useless? it seems like any real revolution would start with a reformist taking power. this would lead to more social reform,(duh) and make the people open to more drastic changes. also, is the fact that someone is a reformist grounds to ignore what they have to say, it seems like anyone who claims to be a reformist would be willing to let a revolution take place as it wouldn't be a far stretch for them to adopt the new ideals. right?

[Demogorgon]

One of the most likely catalysts for revolution would likely be people being dissatisfied at reformist's inability to change things and realising they need more. It is a mistake to write off reformists too easily.

[Bud Struggle]

One of the most likely catalysts for revolution would likely be people being dissatisfied at reformist's inability to change things and realising they need more. It is a mistake to write off reformists too easily.

Reformist most likely by their "Socialist" deeds make life so palitable for the proles that they won't be interested in a Revolution and this maintain Capitalism. Real Communists want the proles to SUFFER under Capitalism.

Good question CL.

And hey, is Trotsky a reformist, I can't figure that one out?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Will somebody let me know in advance. Thanks

[Die Neue Zeit]

Real Communists want the proles to SUFFER under Capitalism.

What an ignorant statement. Whatever happened to the struggle for the eight-hour day? :rolleyes:

The problem with YELLOW reformists is that they limit the scope of their own reformist agenda.

[534634634265]

ok, no nit-picking. demogorgon sort of answered my question, but not to my satisfaction. as far as i can tell, what Tomk says is right. wouldn't a reformist provide enough of a change to at least temporarily pacify the majority? either Tomk is right and communists need the oppression in order to justify their radical change, or there IS a viable role for reformists in a revolutionary sense, right?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ TomK is VERY ignorant on this subject:

The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier (http://marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm)
The Erfurt Programme of the German Social-Democratic Party (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1891erfurt.html)

Unless Marx wasn't a "real communist," LOL :laugh:

There are three types of reforms: yellow, orange, and "red."

[534634634265]

combining both articles, the word reform only appears 4 times. in the second article the subject is blatant socialism if not communism, under the guise of reformism. no wonder they didn't find much popular support, or legal political status. Hitler's advisers were mad, but they weren't stupid as well. the first article isn't much different, only french. so, can someone please answer my question as to why we on this site summarily dismiss reformists? why are we afraid to support those who are still part of "the system"?

EDIT: sorry, my ignorance of color based terms runs from threat levels, to cagetories of idealist. please either explain why we must not traffic with reformists, or explain how the revolution will take place without a reformist leader.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'll answer your question in a PM. :)

[534634634265]

ok, so i read your PM. all i got from that was that Lenin and his cronies were too caught up in their own brand of socialism/communism to accept others as partners in struggle. it literally states that we should do nothing other than tolerate their presence?! thats ridiculous! how do you plan to get a far-left agenda through to the people? it won't be through spreading pamphlets and "educating the masses", because by and large people view the system as unchangeable, or are content with their lot in it. i feel that its better to bring what change you can through the system in order to take us to a place more ready for socialist ideals. you can't hop through straight to revolution, thats utopian idealism with no grounds in reality! reality is that the system of power that is in place is just that a system of POWER. it isn't something you can uproot and switch rapidly. you must first weaken and crumble the foundation of its power before you attempt to topple it. i still haven't been explained in anything other than your terms as to why we need to avoid reformists and why there is a need to resort to color based name calling, as you have done with ever closer union.
in this day and age, even moderate left politics is fairly extreme. leftists should be banding together to fight this slow conservativization of world ideology, not bickering amongst themselves about who is more leftist, or more revolutionary.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Uh, I think you're confused here.


Lenin and his cronies were too caught up in their own brand of socialism/communism to accept others as partners in struggle.

You forgot this:


Note here Lenin’s willingness during this time to work with reformists within an overall organization, not just within some “workers’ united front.”

You also forget the increased calls on the fringes for participatory democracy at the expense of parliamentary electoralism.

[534634634265]

i didn't forget anything. its easy for anyone to say two different things then take a third as his standpoint. lenin might have advocated for unity amongst the leftists while his organization was weak, but he certainly didn't tolerate them in it once he was in power.

[Niccolò Rossi]

it won't be through spreading pamphlets and "educating the masses", because by and large people view the system as unchangeable, or are content with their lot in it.

Here you are correct and incorrect. Bourgeois ideology serves as a constraint to revoltuion. So long as the working masses are captivated by illusions of the permanence of their position and capitalist society no change can be brought about (even including your own reformism). However to say that "educating the masses" is futile is foolish. The only way that a thoroughly revolutionary proletarian class consciousness will be attained by the "masses" is through the tireless effort of revolutionaries against the cultural hegemony of capitalism, at all times bringing to the forefront the interests of the working class.


i feel that its better to bring what change you can through the system in order to take us to a place more ready for socialist ideals.

We don't want to bring about any "Socialist Ideals" "through the system". Communists should always represent the interests of the proletariat as a class, that of course means acknowledging the need for revolution but at the same time realising that reforms can and must be won to benefit the working class in the here and now (are our interests anything but those of the working class?)


you must first weaken and crumble the foundation of its power before you attempt to topple it.

You don't weaken the foundations of the capitalist state by pushing for reforms. The gains that the welfare state offered for the working class of the west are undeniable, but it in no way undermined the basis of the capitalist state, rather it strengthened it.

[Captain Morgan]

And hey, is Trotsky a reformist, I can't figure that one out?

No, he was pretty exactly the opposite; permanent, global proletarian revolution was one of his main ideas.

[Raoul_RedRat]

I thought I don't create a whole new thread just to get my question answered.

The following is quoted from the CC faq.


...and reformism by nature advocates the continuation of capitalism to some degree.

Is this true? Because I tend to think that you can be an anti-capitalist revolutionary by method of reform. I personally feel that capitalism disables people to become conscious and to achieve critical mass to revolt.

Reform on the other hand creates the necessary tension between the current status quo and the possibility of actual freedom. It nurtures dissent and shows people ways of undermining the power of the bourgeoisie. In a sense I see reform as a way to show the paradox of capitalism.

But please do enlighten me, because it seem to me that the word 'reformist' has become quite obscure. I only see it as an a-political adjective that means "to alter the current state of affairs".

[534634634265]

I thought I don't create a whole new thread just to get my question answered.

The following is quoted from the CC faq.



Is this true? Because I tend to think that you can be an anti-capitalist revolutionary by method of reform. I personally feel that capitalism disables people to become conscious and to achieve critical mass to revolt.

Reform on the other hand creates the necessary tension between the current status quo and the possibility of actual freedom. It nurtures dissent and shows people ways of undermining the power of the bourgeoisie. In a sense I see reform as a way to show the paradox of capitalism.

But please do enlighten me, because it seem to me that the word 'reformist' has become quite obscure. I only see it as an a-political adjective that means "to alter the current state of affairs".

thanks Raoul, this is basically what i'm trying to argue here.

[Niccolò Rossi]

[Reform] nurtures dissent and shows people ways of undermining the power of the bourgeoisie. In a sense I see reform as a way to show the paradox of capitalism.

Reform does the exact opposite. Reform does not nurture dissent, it stifles in, pigeon holing the working class into grovelling for bigger bread crumbs from the table of the Bourgeoisie. Reform does not undermine the power of the bourgeoisie, it provides them with a refuge by passifying the class. Reform does not show the paradox of capitalism, rather it shows Capitalism out to be a system which can satisfy the needs and wants of the workers, a permanent framework that they can work within.

[Decolonize The Left]

Is this true? Because I tend to think that you can be an anti-capitalist revolutionary by method of reform. I personally feel that capitalism disables people to become conscious and to achieve critical mass to revolt.

I should like to note that the notion of 'critical mass of revolt' is one way of looking at the situation. One can view the proletariat as a whole, requiring some sort of action potential to revolt. Or one can view the proletariat as a collection of individuals, requiring no specific action potential, but rather changing constantly and moving in general directions.


Reform on the other hand creates the necessary tension between the current status quo and the possibility of actual freedom. It nurtures dissent and shows people ways of undermining the power of the bourgeoisie. In a sense I see reform as a way to show the paradox of capitalism.

This is one perspective. Another would say that reform does nothing to undermine or emphasize the inherent destructive/exploitative/oppressive nature of capitalism. It encourages individuals to seek change through the system, the very system which oppresses them.

Think of when slaves were given money, but had to spend that money at the white man's store. It's the same thing - only bigger and much, much, more sophisticated.


But please do enlighten me, because it seem to me that the word 'reformist' has become quite obscure. I only see it as an a-political adjective that means "to alter the current state of affairs".

Everything 'alters the current state of affairs.' Reformism means seeking change through and within the system. Revolutionary means seeking to change/destroy the very system itself.

- August

[GPDP]

I believe what our reformist friends are trying to say is that there is a difference between reformism for the sake of reformism and reformism as a means towards achieving a socialist end. Some have termed both these positions respectively as "social democracy" and "democratic socialism".

In other words, social democrats only want to reform the capitalist system to make it a more human capitalism, while democratic socialists want to employ an "evolutionary" rather than revolutionary method to gradually do away with capitalism altogether, and transform it into socialism. While the former are basically liberals of the modern kind, the later could be said to hold quite radical views about society on par with those who advocate revolution. It's been a while since I read about the subject, but I believe they basically hold out for "non-reformist reforms".

Of course, I think the democratic socialist strategy amounts to little more than the social democrats', and I am highly skeptical that such a gradual, evolutionary approach, as nice as it may sound, could actually be realised, as the organs of power are still there, and in very much of a position to slow down, halt, and reverse progress. Coupled with the tendency for such reformist parties to eventually bog themselves down into the system, we have been shown time and time again that, in the end, it doesn't really matter whether your desired end is capitalism with a happy face or full-blown socialism. Counter-"evolution" will prevail.

Still, I would not hesitate to work with such democratic socialists. Flawed as their methods may be, a gain is a gain for the working class. In this sense, I feel there is still a role for these radical reformists in the movement, now and in the future.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ QFT, though I would add a third category: RADICAL "democratic socialism" (since "democratic socialism" on its own can be cheapened to equal "social democracy"). RADICAL "democratic socialists" reject the PARLIAMENTARY road to socialism and are for the LEGAL PARTICIPATORY road (referenda, citizens' bodies, workers' councils, etc.) and "revolutionary reforms." :)

That was the point of these two articles:

"United Social Labour": The Merger of Political Soc. and the Workers' Labour Movement (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html)
Program of a New Type: Dynamic Minimum-Reformist-Revolutionary (http://www.revleft.com/vb/program-new-type-t83818/index.html)

Marx' phrase about taking power through "peaceful means where possible, and through violent revolution if necessary" should be updated to...

"[...] Through legal means where possible, and through extralegal means if necessary. Whether such means turn out to be peaceful or violent, that is up to the bourgeoisie."

[Killfacer]

your talking as though the "majority" is not pacified at the moment. If they are pacified by what we have currently, im pretty sure they would be delighted with a reformist government.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What do your remarks have to do with what I've said? :confused:

[freakazoid]

I touch on the subject of reform and revolution here, and why I think in the end reform is not a good thing.

[534634634265]

k in the end reform is not a good thing.
thats a ridiculous statement to make. look at it, think about it, evaluate its meaning in the context of a socialist or communist society. i shat brix.