"Non-reformist" reforms and "social fascism"

[Die Neue Zeit]

Before the "globalization" phenomenon, it was understood that the reformist left was divided between "democratic socialists" and "social-democrats" - all the while trapped in the parliamentary system.

Since then, and since Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez gave a participatory-democratic emphasis to "popular power" through the formation of communal councils, there has been talk on the left for "non-reformist" reforms such as participatory democracy, a drastically shortened workweek, citizens' militias, etc.

With many elements of the revolutionary left still trying to link up with those limiting their positions to "reformist reforms" (unfortunately, this includes Die Linke in Germany and the CNWP in the UK), the rumblings for "non-reformist" reforms continue to be relatively unheard (ironically moreso than the much louder revolutionary rhetoric).

With all the talk about "reform or revolution" (from the revolutionary-Marxist Rosa Luxemburg to even the Trotskyist Ted Grant), would it be prudent to re-evaluate the revolutionary left's relationship with the rest of the left?

On a related note, to what extent has the former Comintern slur of "social fascism" become something more than just a slur against "social-democrats" in today's world?



Links:

http://www.envisioningdemocracy.net/2008/03/a-space-for-par.html
http://danawilliams2.tripod.com/2003/recipe.html
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/6588
http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/dn/vol7/takis_globalisation.htm

[Lynx]

What is the revolutionary left's relationship with the rest of the left?
Do we officially repudiate the efforts of non-reformist reforms?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not necessarily, comrade, if you remember:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/program-new-type-t83818/index.html

Demands 4-6 aren't "non-reformist" reforms. However, consider the ordering of the demands, too. Greater emphasis is placed on the "non-reformist" reforms than on "centre-left social-democratic" reforms ("left social-democratic" proper referring to folks like Boris Kagarlitsky). In Germany, where there is no universal minimum wage law, it is critical that Demand #6 be raised (I even contacted the so-called "Rosa Luxemburg" Foundation that is affiliated with the Left Party there, and they haven't responded :( ).

Self-criticism: I did not raise demands pertaining to occupied factories and similar workplaces (http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5101) in my work, when in fact I should have. Since there are corporate bailouts, why not have state buyouts of bankrupt businesses and the transfer of ownership to the employees working there?

[Lynx]

I'm sorry, by 'we' I meant the revolutionary left in a more general sense. I am in agreement with some of the proposals you have raised, but other comrades may not be.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I know. I am saying that "we" should be focusing more on promoting "non-reformist" reforms than on lesser ones. The relationship between "us" and the rest of the left depends on the group and on the "social-democrats" on the other side. For example, a number of anarchists do a good job in promoting "social-democratic" demands in regards to workers' rights (like typical trade-union militants). The Grantities (International Marxist Tendency) stress liquidationism as a strategy in terms of working exclusively within mainstream left parties (obviously I'm opposed to this :glare: ).

[Charles Xavier]

I hate to break the news for you but any reform in the capitalist system are privileges not rights. They can be suspended when the boss class cannot rule effectively with them. The struggle for reforms is a part of any serious communist party but they should never be seen short sighted and always adhering to the bigger picture.

And it is not true that the revolutionary left must not participate in bourgeiosie democracy. And those that do are simply social democrats and democratic socialists. There are many marxist-leninists across the world in Parliaments. And Historically held important positions in those parliaments.

As for your second question.

Social fascism was the line put forward incorrectly towards the Social Democrats. While this it true in the regard that they facilitated the establishment of Fascism, the Communist International was incorrect to treat the social democrats as the enemy. While this line was completely defeated by Georgi Dimitrov which lead to the establishment of the United Front. You should read the United Front to understand the new line that was established towards social democracy. It was the keynote speech at the 7th congress.

[Lynx]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/program-new-type-t83818/index.html

Regarding demand #2...

The institution of proportional representation in the various legislatures (preferably, for historically significant reasons explained in Chapter 5, of the closed-list variant that allows mere parties to arbitrarily appoint to and remove from legislatures the party-affiliated legislators, based on their submission to party decisions and on the need to combat degenerative personality politics).
...Would a more ambitious future demand be the implementation of direct democracy? In Canada, this may be achievable.

[Lynx]

And it is not true that the revolutionary left must not participate in bourgeiosie democracy. And those that do are simply social democrats and democratic socialists. There are many marxist-leninists across the world in Parliaments. And Historically held important positions in those parliaments.
I would like to learn more details regarding this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Regarding demand #2...

...Would a more ambitious future demand be the implementation of direct democracy? In Canada, this may be achievable.

Indeed, comrade. Direct democracy is but the most extreme form of the post-representative participatory democracy (hence why Chapters 4 and 5 talk about "ever-increasing amounts of participatory democracy").

Note, however, your own usage of the word "future." ;) Without the DRASTICALLY shortened workweek, how can citizens have the necessary time to participate in political affairs? :(


I would like to learn more details regarding this.

In my "United Social Labour" article, there are better ways to "fight" for "non-reformist" reforms than through parliamentary means. The original purpose of parliamentary tactics was to facilitate the "tribune of the people" purpose of the classical Social-Democratic parties (through oratory, anti-government scandal exposures, and so on):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-and-peaceful-t81888/index.html?p=1177823#post1177823


I've read p. 72 and 73 of Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered (courtesy of Google Books), and the author had this to say about the parliamentary ("talking shop") TACTIC:


One central forum for this activity was parliament. We sometimes tend to equate "parliamentary activity with mild-mannered reformism. But, at the end of the nineteenth century, when oratory in general and parliamentary oratory in particular was much more popular and prestigious than today, the SPD's use of the parliamentary forum was an essential means of taking its stand and spreading its message...

The existence of parliament and especially the right of interpellation (the right of an ordinary member to demand an answer of a cabinet minister on any topic) allowed small parliamentary minorities to obtain a nation-wide hearing for their criticism of the government...

Another weapon used by the SPD in its role as people's tribune - one of central importance to Lenin and Iskra - was what Lenin called political indictments: the exposure of corruption and scandal. Uncovering abuses, often with the help of sympathetic whistle-blowers who passed on incriminating documents, was a major activity of the socialist press.

Nowadays, bourgeois electoralism should be treated by the disenfranchised working class (including much of the "middle class") with organized spoilage, not mere abstention. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-abstention-and-t77658/index.html)

[Charles Xavier]

The electoral system is merely one way of struggle it is completely useless if not combined with other mass worker action, stuggle and organization

[Lynx]

Indeed, comrade. Direct democracy is but the most extreme form of the post-representative participatory democracy (hence why Chapters 4 and 5 talk about "ever-increasing amounts of participatory democracy").

Note, however, your own usage of the word "future." ;) Without the DRASTICALLY shortened workweek, how can citizens have the necessary time to participate in political affairs? :(
Granted, there is a logical order to attaining certain goals - nevertheless do you believe a transition to participatory democracy is possible under (by that time) a proportional representative parliamentary system? Can such a demand be made and then achieved? My overall interest is on pinpointing what can & cannot be achieved through the current system. (While taking into account the effect demand #2 would have, if implemented)


In my "United Social Labour" article, there are better ways to "fight" for "non-reformist" reforms than through parliamentary means. The original purpose of parliamentary tactics was to facilitate the "tribune of the people" purpose of the classical Social-Democratic parties (through oratory, anti-government scandal exposures, and so on):
I shall deduce then, that the Marxist-Leninists comrade GeorgiDimitrovII was referring to, were orators. I would still like to know a bit more about them.

So it appears that speaking time inside the House of Commons has been reduced; this does not preclude speaking time outside of Parliament nor the benefits of a budget ($) allocated to members of parliament to perform their 'duties'.

The electoral system is merely one way of struggle it is completely useless if not combined with other mass worker action, stuggle and organization
Yes, it is one method of struggle, and a nemesis that returns to the forefront as soon as the revolutionary left garners any significant support. Like capitalism, when the current system sees there is a 'market', politicians and parties quickly pop up. They will appear to want to meet the workers revolutionary demands with the hope of less bloodshed and complete legality. All the workers have to do is vote...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Granted, there is a logical order to attaining certain goals - nevertheless do you believe a transition to participatory democracy is possible under (by that time) a proportional representative parliamentary system? Can such a demand be made and then achieved? My overall interest is on pinpointing what can & cannot be achieved through the current system. (While taking into account the effect demand #2 would have, if implemented)

Another good question that made me think a bit, comrade. Under FPTP, the "constituents" can call their "representatives" and tell them to vote a certain way (usually this doesn't happen, even if the majority don't like the voting record of that "rep").

Under pure PR, there are no direct links between the "constituents" and the "representatives." Such formalization of the distance between the "constituents" and the "representatives" except through political parties could induce ordinary citizens to exert pressure for certain laws to be passed.

My answer is: if you're referring to basic participatory democracy (PD is a spectrum ranging from the basic to the direct), it should, hypothetically speaking, be attainable through OUTSIDE pressure on the PR parliamentary system. Obviously at higher levels the relationship between PD and PR becomes a zero-sum game. This is what will ultimately separate the revolutionaries from even the *real* reformists.


I shall deduce then, that the Marxist-Leninist comrade GeorgiDimitrovII was referring to, were orators. I would still like to know a bit more about them.

Other than the Lih quote I provided, I don't have any additional material. :(


So it appears that speaking time inside the House of Commons has been reduced; this does not preclude speaking time outside of Parliament nor the benefits of a budget ($) allocated to members of parliament to perform their 'duties'.

I would think so, indeed. Question Period is only an hour long, and I'm not sure if the US Congress has an equivalent.


Yes, it is one method of struggle, and a nemesis that returns to the forefront as soon as the revolutionary left garners any significant support. Like capitalism, when the current system sees there is a 'market', politicians and parties quickly pop up. They will appear to want to meet the workers revolutionary demands with the hope of less bloodshed and complete legality. All the workers have to do is vote...

At the beginning of Chapter 4, I criticized the original "social democracy." While I relied on the "bowdlerised abridgement" of Kautsky's work and criticized his parliamentary reductionism, there is indeed a deeper problem:


Great capitalists can influence rulers and legislators directly, but the workers can do so only through parliamentary activity.

What he actually meant here was that workers could not influence the politicians and the bureaucrats directly. Well, the Civil Rights movement in the US sure proved him wrong and then some!

[Lynx]

Another good question that made me think a bit, comrade. Under FPTP, the "constituents" can call their "representatives" and tell them to vote a certain way (usually this doesn't happen, even if the majority don't like the voting record of that "rep").

Under pure PR, there are no direct links between the "constituents" and the "representatives." Such formalization of the distance between the "constituents" and the "representatives" except through political parties could induce ordinary citizens to exert pressure for certain laws to be passed.

My answer is: if you're referring to basic participatory democracy (PD is a spectrum ranging from the basic to the direct), it should, hypothetically speaking, be attainable through OUTSIDE pressure on the PR parliamentary system. Obviously at higher levels the relationship between PD and PR becomes a zero-sum game. This is what will ultimately separate the revolutionaries from even the *real* reformists.
*food for thought*


Other than the Lih quote I provided, I don't have any additional material. :(
Just give me their names, I'll Google them. Perhaps some of their speeches (or quotes therefrom) are already familiar to me.


I would think so, indeed. Question Period is only an hour long, and I'm not sure if the US Congress has an equivalent.
There is C-SPAN, which indicates there is enough material for a cable channel, although there was an incident where a politician was found to be hectoring an empty room.


At the beginning of Chapter 4, I criticized the original "social democracy." While I relied on the "bowdlerised abridgement" of Kautsky's work and criticized his parliamentary reductionism, there is indeed a deeper problem:

What he actually meant here was that workers could not influence the politicians and the bureaucrats directly. Well, the Civil Rights movement in the US sure proved him wrong and then some!
Explain!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just give me their names, I'll Google them. Perhaps some of their speeches (or quotes therefrom) are already familiar to me.

Try Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel.


Explain!

The Civil Rights movement in the US was an expression of direct action. According to Kautskyan thinking, the protesters should have voted for some pro-rights representatives to work in the US Congress instead.

[MarxSchmarx]

Under pure PR, there are no direct links between the "constituents" and the "representatives." Such formalization of the distance between the "constituents" and the "representatives" except through political parties could induce ordinary citizens to exert pressure for certain laws to be passed... basic participatory democracy...should, hypothetically speaking, be attainable through OUTSIDE pressure on the PR parliamentary system. Obviously at higher levels the relationship between PD and PR becomes a zero-sum game. This is what will ultimately separate the revolutionaries from even the *real* reformists.


I agree. The same, of course, is true for elector systems other than proportional representation, such as winner take all districts. It should be possible to go from either parlimentary system to a "participatory democracy" with outside pressure. Much of the same pressure that can be exerted on parties can also be exerted on individual representatives in winner-take-all systems.

However, as you allude to, all this might not really matter much in the end. As per your "parliamentary reductionism", the goal of participatory democracy will be achieved through external organizing and institution building. By the time the question of cajoling politician's votes one way or another arise, parliament should be rendered obsolete.

[mikelepore]

The Civil Rights movement in the US was an expression of direct action. According to Kautskyan thinking, the protesters should have voted for some pro-rights representatives to work in the US Congress instead.

Someone like John Conyers, elected to the U.S. Congress in 1965 largely because Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King campaigned for him.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://21stcenturysocialism.blogspot.com/2007/09/venezuela-and-new-socialism.html

The demands presented in the blog above:

1) Tying currencies to labour-time;
2) Establishing labour-time accounts;
3) Establishing litigation rights against employers who don't pay the full value of labour (most likely a "transitional" demand here);
4) Establishing land taxes on the rentable value of land.