Reformism

[butterfly]

How would one go about defining it? If someone would be so kind as to give examples that would be great. :D:confused:

[Tower of Bebel]

Reformism is fighting for reforms for the sake of reforms. In organizational terms it is something like: the final goal is nothing, the movement is everything. In concreto it means a movement or party that fights for reforms for its own sake while ignoring socialism as the final goal. Because the final strategic goal is dumbed down and ignored reformists tend to urge for coalitions with the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. They finally end up becoming sock puppets of the bourgeoisie.

The solution is the principle that socialism, which is our final aim, can only come about through the internationalist, revolutionary self-organization of the proletariat. Reforms can be used to make all this effective.

An example: The most famous "reformist" is E. Bernstein, former secretary of F. Engels. He was the one who wrote that the final goal is nothing while the movement is everything. He also attacked the maximum program for being old-fashioned since he believed capitalism would peacefully turn into socialism. While during his lifetime almost nobody followed "his" ideas, the SPD's right wing did actually follow the route Bernstein had supported. The SPD's right wing purged the party from the "revolutionary" left in 1917 and took (capitalist) state power in 1918. The reforms of the maximum-minimum program were watered down to aims which the bourgeois could agree with. The SPD turned from a revolutionary party that had as it's aim the internationalist, revolutionary self-organization of the proletariat into a reformist party that urged for the defense of the capitalist state.

Another example: The Belgian Workers' Party (2nd International) was never a revolutionary party. It copied the German maximum-minimum program but fought for reforms for the sake of reforms in a way Bernstein would have agreed with. Finally they made a "holy unity" coalition with catholics and liberals after World War One.

As opposed to this: The Bolshevik Party. It had as its aim the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist order through the revolutionary class struggle. To make the democratic rule (or class dictatorship) of the proletariat effective it had a minimum program that urged for reforms that could guarantee such democratic rule. When the party degenerated during the counterrevolutionary period of civil war (1918-1921) the proletariat became slowly unorganized. Soviets became party organs, and during the early 90's the Union collapsed. Abroad this evolution was reflected in reformist programs of various communist parties. Some even started coalitions after World War Two.

[butterfly]

Reforms can be used to make all this effective.
This is bound to be quite subjective in nature but which reforms would be considered an effective method of advancing our interests?

[Tower of Bebel]

Freedom of press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of association, Universal suffrage, etc. All things that should make it possible for the working class to organize itself and eventually all aims that would guarantee proletarian class rule. In the end it is the (outcome of) class struggle that gives contents to these reforms.
Some call them bourgeois demands or bourgeois reforms... but in reality only the proletariat has full advantage over full democracy while the bourgeois only offers (very) limited "democracy" as long as it is suits the functioning/freedom of capital. That's why the working class must dominate the struggle for democracy, not the petty bourgeoisie or capitalist bourgeoisie.
There are of course those who don't fight for reforms and only offer the maximum program of socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/14.htm) (mostly accompanied with this argument: the imperialist nature of the current epoch), and those who have a program that forms a bridge between minimum and maximum. Although I'm active in a party which has a transitional program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#mt) (a supposed bridge between minimum and maximum), it never had a strong influence on me.

[BobKKKindle$]

Rakunin has already made many excellent points in this thread, but there is a distinction which needs to be made explicit so as to avoid any confusion - fighting for reforms is not the same as being a reformist. A reformist is someone who rejects revolution as a means of transforming society and limits their political activity to the struggle for reforms either within the framework of capitalism (as in the case of liberals and other members of the bourgeois political appratus) or with the naive intention of securing a peaceful and parliamentary transition to socialism (as in the case of Bernstein and other "democratic socialists"). Trotskyists have traditionally been in favour of transitional demands - these are demands which would not result in the abolition of capitalism if they were implemented but cannot be obtained within the framework of capitalism due to the practical and ideological constraints imposed by the power of capital. By integratng transitional demands into our fight for reforms we can expose the failure of capitalism to meet the basic needs of working people around the world and thereby raise the political consciousness of the proletariat.

[butterfly]

Ok, that makes things much more clear, thankyou:)

[JimmyJazz]

Reformism is fighting for reforms for the sake of reforms. In organizational terms it is something like: the final goal is nothing, the movement is everything. In concreto it means a movement or party that fights for reforms for its own sake while ignoring socialism as the final goal.

I would add to this the groups who pay lip service to socialism, yet have no solid plan for where the socially-owned capital is going to come from. They shy away from talk of revolution and of "seizing wealth" from today's capitalists, yet they talk of socialism, as though the necessary capital to build it will simply fall from the sky.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Reformism is fighting for reforms for the sake of reforms. In organizational terms it is something like: the final goal is nothing, the movement is everything. In concreto it means a movement or party that fights for reforms for its own sake while ignoring socialism as the final goal. Because the final strategic goal is dumbed down and ignored reformists tend to urge for coalitions with the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. They finally end up becoming sock puppets of the bourgeoisie.

Everything you said, comrade, is good except for one little point: "becoming sock puppets..." ( :lol: at computer term usage) *by dumbing down even their own reform proposals* :thumbup1:


While during his lifetime almost nobody followed "his" ideas, the SPD's right wing did actually follow the route Bernstein had supported.

I read some article by the CPGB stating that there were *five* trends in the worker-class movement during this time, dividing the right and the left into two trends each. It went on to say that the tred-iunionisty in the SPD weren't "Bernsteinian" at all, since they supported the war effort in 1914 (contrary to Bernstein and the rest of the intellectual non-Marxist socialists of the day, who were pacifists):

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/495/marxism.html


By the middle 1890s it is possible to distinguish five different trends in the international workers’ movement:

(a) Right syndicalists or ‘non-political’ trade-unionists. The most important element was the right wing in the British trade union movement, but the trend was also found elsewhere in Europe, and within Germany under the banner of the SPD, as well as in the catholic and other trade union organisations. The Russian ‘economists’ were ideological representatives of this trend with a Marxist coloration. This tendency held that it was sufficient to defend the immediate economic interests of workers in the direct struggle with their employers - primarily through trade union action, but also through seeking pro-worker legislation.

(b) Non-Marxist socialists. The usual ‘representative figure’ is Bernstein, because he was an ex-Marxist, relatively ‘sophisticated’ in his writings and engaged in argument by the German centre and left. In fact Bernstein is not particularly representative: there were various other forms of non-Marxist socialism, like those of the English Fabians and Independent Labour Party or the semi-Radical trend in France led by Jean Jaurès. This tendency argued, on very various grounds, that the task of the movement simply was to fight within the existing state order for reforms which shifted society towards socialist ‘values’. Its direct inheritors are the modern socialist parties.

(c) The ‘Kautskyan Marxist’ centre, mainly based in the SPD but also found in France (where the most prominent leader was Jules Guesde) and elsewhere; the Russian Iskra tendency around 1900, and hence both the Bolsheviks and part of the Mensheviks, were part of this tendency. This tendency had generally Marxist reference points. It foresaw a decline of capitalism and a revolution at some point in the future, but was ambiguous as to the role in this of the parliamentary-constitutional state. Its main focus in practice was on ‘preparatory tasks’: ie, building up the organised workers’ movement, including trade unions and cooperatives, but particularly building an organised workers’ political party which would take on all political questions posed for the society as a whole.

(d) A ‘Hegelian Marxist’ and semi-syndicalist left tendency within the International. Prominent leaders or writers included Antonio Labriola in Italy, Herman Gorter in the Netherlands and Rosa Luxemburg in Poland and Germany. This tendency argued that the International should not merely prepare for the revolution, but should fight for it by promoting strike action and the general strike, which was seen as the means by which the proletariat escaped from the dynamics of commodity fetishism and began to emancipate itself; it tended to deprioritise or reject electoral and parliamentary activity. Luxemburg’s pamphlet The mass strike is part of the ongoing polemics of this tendency against the right and centre round the ‘strategy’ of the general strike. Trotsky seems to have been intermediate between this position and the centre.

(e) Outright left anarcho-syndicalists were outside the International, but, as can be seen from (d), their ideas had significant indirect influence within it; they were strongest in Italy, Spain and France (another Hegelian Marxist, Georges Sorel, was a theoretician of revolutionary syndicalism in France). They were also present in the USA and Britain (International Workers of the World and De Leonist Socialist Labour Parties).

[GPDP]

Thanks for that insight, JR. It always helps to clear up the spectrum of the labor movement and its wings, from right to left.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Unfortunately, only four of those five tendencies have a solid existence, even if marginalized. One of them needs to be rebuilt from scratch... badly. :(

EDIT: The spat between Trotskyists and Left-Communists is little more than a right-left schism within Tendency D.

[GPDP]

I assume you mean the 'Kautskyan Marxist' centre?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Unfortunately, only four of those five tendencies have a solid existence, even if marginalized. One of them needs to be rebuilt from scratch... badly.I assume you mean the 'Kautskyan Marxist' centre?

That's correct. :D

"The difference between the conceptions 'Marxist centre' (= independent policy, independent ideas, independent theory) and 'Marsh' (= wavering, lack of principle, 'turn table' ('Drehscheibe'), weathercock)." (Vladimir Lenin) (http://www.marxfaq.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/ni-alpha/marsh.htm)

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Everyone has done a very good job of explaining various aspects of reformism. I think we can agree that within a simple framework. A revolutionary is one who believes that the fundamental system must be changed. A reformist is one who believes that only aspects of the system must be changed.

A revolutionary can fight for better wages, but she reduces wage exploitation with the understanding that it is only a step to overthrowing the system of exploitation itself. The reformist can fight for a better wage and does so only to make the system more "humane".

[ZeroNowhere]

"Take, for instance, a poodle. You can reform him in a lot of ways. You can shave his whole body and leave a tassle at the tip of his tail; you may bore a hole through each ear, and tie a blue bow on one and a red bow on the other; you may put a brass collar around his neck with your initials on, and a trim little blanket on his back.... And yet, essentially, a poodle he was, a poodle he is, and a poodle he will remain. That is REFORM."

[Rawthentic]

Reformism. Such a complex question, particularly in our times.

Daily, hourly, minutely, there are manifestations of capitalist oppression.

The key question for communists is: what struggles do we concentrate our efforts on on learning from and leading from?

Are communists union hacks that fight for higher wages for workers, or are they "tribunes of the people" as Lenin said?

I think it is legitimate to fight for reforms under a revolutionary context in capitalist society. But that of course depends on conditions.

Communists existence is based on the need to lead the people (whilst learning from them) while raising their sights towards revolution and communist society. We don't exist to demand higher wages, or whatever (although not that they arent important). What I mean to say is that we shouldn't be part of a movement that has lowered sights, which is unfortunately what dominates in the Left today.

So, as I stated above, there many manifestations of oppression. But, do we choose the small ones that are easily funneled into reformist traps and bourgeois elections and really dont put need for revolution (and the nature of this system) on the table? i think we need to focus on mass faultline struggles that are deeply polarizing yet have the ability to unite the masses as well as expose the nature of the system.

In other words, do we choose fighting for higher wages, or leading the immigrant rights struggle (which brings in crucial questions of imperialism and racism), do we fight for unionization or against police brutality?

Keep in mind, ALL the struggles I mentioned are legitimate. BUT, for those who have read What is to Be Done and have a basic understanding of how the consciousness of the people is transformed, there are struggles such as those over unions and wages that focus on narrow demands which are essentially reformist, and there are those that really are "faultine" in that they expose capitalism and its nature, as well as setting the sights of the masses on a higher platform than a narrow movement for wages or unions, such as the anti-war movement or police brutality.

Consciousness does come from without.

I want to also chime into something Reclaimed said. Revolution is about politics, not intentions. So, if there is a self-described communist who focuses his struggles on wages with the belief that this can lead to a revolutionary consciousness or movement, we need to analyze his reformist tendencies and where his politics can lead - not judge based on his revolutionary intentions.

This is a bit of a ramble. And I've been hella sick for a few days so I've got nothing better to do.

Feel free to critique.

[Random Precision]

In other words, do we choose fighting for higher wages, or leading the immigrant rights struggle (which brings in crucial questions of imperialism and racism), do we fight for unionization or against police brutality?

We choose all of them.


there are struggles such as those over unions and wages that focus on narrow demands which are essentially reformist, and there are those that really are "faultine" in that they expose capitalism and its nature

So let's take a hypothetical. Suppose we're living about a hundred years ago. The printers' union has just gone on strike and they are demanding that they be paid for punctuation as well as the rest of the text they set. Do we wrote this off as a narrow, reformist struggle? I'll let you decide.

[Rawthentic]

Random:

first off, thanks for the response.

In terms of social, economic, and political struggles, we can't "choose all of them."

As I said, isn't everything a reflection of oppression? From the way teachers talk to students, to what textbooks say, to wage struggles, anti-war; from racism in employment, to the relationship between a heterosexal couple. These are things we can all identify as wrong and oppressive.

But, we can't be everywhere. And, in fact, (as i stated), there are certain struggles that by their nature "raise the sights" (sorry for using RCP terms, I dont support them but I "came up" through that organization) of the masses because they moved beyond the framework of more narrow and immediate demands, and can serve as a means to political education and more developed forms of resistance and organization (as I said - and this depends on conditions and country - anti war, police brutality, immigrant rights, gentrification, and many others).

Economism (and Im not labeling you anything, it is something that ties into this deeply) is the belief that we need to focus the struggles we lead based on what the people percieve to be their own immediate needs at a particular juncture. And, leading from this, the masses will come to "trust us" because we won them over by appealing to such things - assuming that this is how the people will then come to us and be won over to a revolutionary view of society and the world.

For example, if we increasingly focus on the oppression of a particular police dept or individual, landlord, boss, etc., that eventually the people will come to see the "larger system" and be won over to revolution.

And these sorts of struggles have a natural tendency towards reformism and being channeled into bourgeois politics (ie arranging an agreement with a particular employer, negotiations, etc.).

As Lenin correctly stated, communist consciousness comes from WITHOUT. It comes throught studying history, economics, society, etc. And we need to focus on struggles that break from the framework of what is immediate for the people and focus on events that reveal the nature and interplay of all the forces in society (and how they react to events). And it is our responsibility to take this to the people in a creative and scientific manner.

After all, I don't think the people just want to learn how to battle their own oppression. They want to make a new revolutionary society (which would require writing laws, making social and economic transformations in all spheres) and this cant be done if we focus on shitty wages or what are basically factory floor complaints.

And last but not least:

we aren't living 100 years ago. We are living in the highest stage of capitalism - and that radically changes everything, including communists' political work. Would I support then? Of course. Would I support it today? of course. So, it isn't about "support", because it should be a given that communists support these things, it is about which struggles can build a revolutionary movement - and understanding What is to Be Done?

So, since trotskyism (at least in the US) is highly based on organizing (mostly privileged, white workers - not to say they arent active in other areas) in unions and even leading them in hopes that someday the workers will see them as "good" and then become revolutionary, are communists union stewardesses, or tribunes of the people?

I guess I'll let you decide (but it looks like you've already done so).

Happy new years.

[Rawthentic]

One particular correction to my post: there aren't struggles that can "naturally" build a rev movement, such as anti-war or others I suggested above. Indeed, they all need communist leadership, but such struggles are the ones communists need to be leading with their politics due to their ability (as opposed to narrower struggles).

[gilhyle]

there are struggles such as those over unions and wages that focus on narrow demands which are essentially reformist, and there are those that really are "faultine" in that they expose capitalism and its nature,

Not sure this distinction works. All struggle for narrow demands allows the movement to be built. Without the movement there is no transition to revolution. Thus it is not correct to draw such a radical distinction between the narrow and the 'faultline' struggles - except in revolutionary periods.

The class struggle is an iterative process in which the particular successes become the pre-conditions of what is subsequently possible. Without that progressive building of the labour movement no revolutionary seizure of the state is possible.

And there is a second point. What differentiates the reformist from the revolutionary is not so much that the revolutionary wants a radical transformation of society and the reformist does not. Rather the difference is that the reformist is willing to initiate and support reforms carried out by the capitalist state and the revolutionary considers the price of those reforms too high.

Thus the contrast between the reformist and the revolutionary is not so clear as all that. The revolutionary fully supports and values struggles for partial and limited demands by organised workers, but is unwilling to support even the most radical changes if done by the Capitalist state.

[Rawthentic]

gilhyle:

thanks for the response.


I think you have a point. But there is certainly a distinction between the different types of struggles I have described, and they have different possibilities, due to the nature of the system and how people come to a broad, communist understanding of the world.

My post was not intended as an whole critique of reformism or economism, more of an oversight and a look into the leninist understanding on how the consciousness of the people can be transformed.

I essentially agree with your post. And it reveals how complex this question really is for us.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What differentiates the reformist from the revolutionary is not so much that the revolutionary wants a radical transformation of society and the reformist does not. Rather the difference is that the reformist is willing to initiate and support reforms carried out by the capitalist state and the revolutionary considers the price of those reforms too high.

Thus the contrast between the reformist and the revolutionary is not so clear as all that. The revolutionary fully supports and values struggles for partial and limited demands by organised workers, but is unwilling to support even the most radical changes if done by the Capitalist state.

Please clarify: does "by the capitalist state" mean merely "by the capitalist state on its own initiative," or "by the capitalist state, either on its own initiative or under class-strugglist pressure" (which could signify ultra-leftism)?

[gilhyle]

In effect, 'on its own initiative'. The issue here is whether one should take power or participate in the exercise of power within the capitallist state or, instead, place pressure on it from outside by means of class struggle. The latter is the Marxist course.....though of course 'f rom outside' does not exclude from within parliament.

[Q]

"How many reformists does it take to change the lightbulb?"
"Change it? Can't we just try and fix it?"

Sums it up pretty nicely I think.