Study Group: "Reform or Revolution" by Rosa Luxemburg

The poll a week ago decided on this as the next work to study.

Reform or Revolution

This text is directed against the reformism of Eduard Bernstein, a German socialist who was close to Marx and Engels during their later years. He published his "developments" (in fact attacks) on Marxism in the German Social-Democratic Party's journal Die Neue Zeit, and in 1898, a book called The Presuppositions of Socialism and the Tasks of Social-Democracy (or Evolutionary Socialism in English). Luxemburg's pamphlet therefore makes extensive use of Bernstein's articles. Here it is for anyone interested:

Evolutionary Socialism

I'll start reading Part One again so I can post my observations.

I think it would be best to outline the text before getting into the ways in which it uses dialectics. Here is somewhat of an outline of the first chapter in Part One, "The Opportunist Method":

The Opportunist Method

This section is a deconstruction of Bernstein's logic, which shows itself to be riddled with contradictions and fallacies. Bernstein’s revisionism is founded not on questioning what the tasks of socialism are, but rather a certain conception of what he thinks of as changes in the ways capitalism has developed since the time of Marx.

He believes that capitalism will not eventually collapse in a general crisis that opens the way to revolution. He believes this for two reasons:

1. Capitalism has shown a greater ability to adapt itself than Marx granted it. Bernstein points to what he thinks of as the disappearance of general crises, resulting from the credit system, the appearance of employers’ associations, wider means of communication, and informational services.
2. Capitalist production has become more and more varied and socialized, which has resulted in the tenacity of the middle class, and the ability of the proletariat to ameliorate its economic and political situation through trade-union activity.

Therefore, he believes that socialists should adapt their activity to these new features of capitalism in the following ways:

1. Socialists should direct their attention to obtaining immediate reforms from the capitalist system for the betterment of the working-class condition
2. Rather than expecting to build socialism as a result of political and economic crisis, they should focus on building it through extending social control over the capitalist system

However, in contradiction to his second point, we must remember that Bernstein believes in the ability of capitalism to correct its own anarchic trends. He says that capitalist development will not lead to an economic collapse:

One could claim that by collapse of the present society is meant something else than a general commercial crisis, worse than all others, that is a complete collapse of the capitalist system brought about as a result of its own contradictions…With the growing development of society a complete and almost general collapse of the present system of production becomes more and more improbable, because capitalist development increases on the one hand the capacity of adaptation and, on the other – that is at the same time, the differentiation of industry.

Therefore, we must question, presuming Bernstein is correct, why and how we achieve the final goal of socialism. If we admit that capitalist production does not move in the direction of its own ruin, then we abolish the historic necessity of socialism.

Scientific socialism has three fundamental and interrelated premises, which are natural results of capitalist development:

1. The growing anarchy of capitalist production
2. The progressive socialization of the process of production- cartels, the credit system, etc.
3. The increased organization and consciousness of the proletariat.

Bernstein has removed altogether the first of these premises. He represents the second as the way in which capitalism will manage to adapt, and the third as the way in which socialism can be constructed through the capitalist system.

However, once again his faulty premises lead him to a contradictory conclusion. If, as he says, capitalism will manage to adapt through the use of cartels and credit, then in fact the antagonism between capitalists and workers will also be resolved within capitalism. There will be no need to struggle for socialism. Credit and cartels, while being a socialized form of production, cannot lead to socialist production if they are indeed ways for capitalism to adapt. Finally, the third premise, the class consciousness of the proletariat, has become no more than an ideal if we remove the impending collapse of capitalism from the mix. In other words, without the first premise, the second becomes a prop for capitalism rather than a sign of socialism, and the class-conscious proletariat, the artificer of socialism has no reason to exist given a) the end of anarchy in capitalist production and b) the increased socialization of the same.

Thus, revisionist logic presents a fundamental dilemma. Either scientific socialism is correct, and the socialist transformation is the consequence of the internal contradictions of capitalism that will result in its collapse; or Bernstein’s “means of adaptation” will save the capitalist system, and enable it to suppress its own contradictions. In that case, socialism has ceased to become a historic necessity. In turn, if socialism is not a historical necessity, it becomes an unattainable utopia- either that or socialism is not a utopia, and the theory of “means of adaptation” is false. This is the controversy in a nutshell.

Therefore, we see that Bernstein's "evolutionary socialism" will in fact result neither in socialism nor evolution, but rather a continuation of the same capitalist order, when we carry his logic to its natural conclusion.

Nice summary.
I have this booklet but it has been 15 years since I read it last time. I will try reading it again and I might contribute to the study group later.