Results 1 to 14 of 14
"Reformism"? Long term and short term needs/interests
Why do Leftists think that struggling to improve the conditions of the proletariat and other marginalized classes within bourgeois democracy is necessarily mutually exclusive with organizing revolutionary struggles to actually liberate them?
If I'm a worker making $8 an hour and a bourgeois politician promises to increase the minimum wage to $12 an hour (and assuming I'm reasonably certain that he will actually do so once elected) but there is no viable revolutionary alternative, why not vote for them? The politician won't liberate me from Capitalism and the pains that it brings but they will certainly make my life easier. The next part of the question is obviously "Can I do that while also fighting for a revolutionary cause?" It seems that someone could simultaneously struggle for a socio-economic revolution while separately supporting a politician from Labor, the Democrats, the French socialists, the Chinese Communist Party or any other similarly pro-Capitalist party which claims to uphold Leftist causes, for the sake of doing particular things which are good in the short term.
I'm aware of failures of reformist movements in the past and why they failed, I'm more interested in the moralistic and utterly dismissive response which some Leftists have to anyone who votes or works for the bourgeois left, and the fact that it somehow excludes people from being revolutionary. It seems like revolution is in the long term interests of the working class, but revolutions themselves are not so common. I have my own positions on this - I'm just curious what various tendencies/people on the "revolutionary left" think of this question (And no, I didn't vote for a "liberal left" party in the last election in case you wanted to ask)
Socialist Party of Outer Space
you'll get a 'thanks' from ngnm85, that's for sure.
i think the "moralism" really lies at the door of those who make this argument and then castigate those who challenge it with cries that they "don't care about helping the working class" (lol). this argument assumes that those of us who are "against reformism" wouldn't also, y'know, benefit from reforms.
from a british perspective nobody votes for labour anymore because they promise reforms but because "they're better than the tories", and even this line is slowly becoming less common, as labour councils attack the working class and the labour opposition in parliament vote through austerity measures.
Until now, the left has only managed capital in various ways; the point, however, is to destroy it.
I guess my objection to this would be that there is a difference between attempting to achieve reform through the ballot box (what the op was talking about) and organizing grass roots campaigns to fight for better conditions for the working class.
I don't think that most people are going to object to a minimum wage increase, or that voting is always bad or useless, but the bourgeios politician may have other reactionary/harmful to the left positions. If he's an Obama-like imperialist, or is implicated in the mistreatment of immigrants, should the workers really help him and the forces that bring him to power?
There's also a danger of paternalism (he raised the minimum wage, all hail our saviour), though it's only a danger rather then an inevitable consequence.
i don't see what you're objecting to, or how you're adding anything to the discussion; it's quite clear what the op is talking about, and what i am responding to.
Until now, the left has only managed capital in various ways; the point, however, is to destroy it.
First of all before this starts off, can we define what "reformism" is? Most people seem to ignore the actual, historically accepted definition of "reformism": the belief that the capitalist mode of production can be transformed into a socialist one through gradual reform, not revolution. Usually reformists believe this because according to them revolutions are a thing of the past and are no longer possible, and less commonly, that revolution is not an outdated concept, though it is, all in all, not a very nice thing and basically an evil, so it should be avoided at all costs.
Last edited by l'Enfermé; 2nd April 2013 at 00:05.
I was more just attempting to take the discussion in a different direction, since I thought some interesting discussion could be had centered around the anti-activism of certain milieu's of the radical left, plus I've always considered you a fairly well read anarchist/left-com. But you don't have to respond and I guess it may have been somewhat off topic; I just thought that given the title of 'reformism' there was a tenuous point of contact, between the two subjects.
Edit: l'enferme, while that is true, the modern usage of the term carries with it other connotations. I've fine with reformism being used in its proper historical sense, but then, for the sake of the discussion, what do we use to denote what is known as reformism in this day and age?
I'm not trying to make my own moral critique of anyone who generally refuses to vote for liberal and social democratic parties by any means.
I guess the question might be more relevant for anti-austerity social democrat parties like SYRIZA or reformist ballot measures that increase social spending than a post-Blairite labor candidate. A radical once told me that my efforts for fighting for such a reformist ballot measure would not actually fix things. Abstractly, I agree with him that only a revolution can solve these issues in a systematic sense, but in the mean time I wouldn't mind cutting some of my bills through an increase in social spending, even if the means of doing so are within the system of a bourgeois democratic republic.
You'll find many people on this site who are critical supporters of Syriza. Myself, despite my party's line, don't know enough to make up my mind yet. I'm also far too detached from the struggle in Greece.
Edit: Also it could perhaps have more of a tangible benefit then lowering your bills, it could have the benefit of helping to raise class consciousness. There seems to be two strains of thought on 'reforms' within the radical left; (1) reforms only increase passivity within the working class and (2) reforms help the working class realize that, collectively, they can win concessions from the ruling class through struggle. Ultimately I fall more in line with the 2nd strain of thought, but that being said I don't think either two of those strains can be raised to principles. There will undoubtedly be times (and historically have been) where concessions have been handed to pacify the masses). This kinda brings up my point to begin with though, if reforms are handed out by some benevolent bureaucrat voted into office, it will most likely help pacify the proletariat ('oh look this guy is fighting for us') rather if organized grass roots campaigns win concessions from the bourgeoisie, then this will lead to an increase in class consciousness (together we can struggle to make things better), even if revolution isn't originally on the agenda.
I'm not against reforms themselves. Reforms make our lives a little better as working people. What I am against is when these processes are the only or major tactic that socialists engage in and as such become a strategy in themselves, an actual strategy that frustrated revolutionaries resort to. Reforms come, not from the victories of the reformists, but from the defeats of the revolutionaries.
Reformists kill revolutions and subsequently destroy worker movements. Rosa Luxembourg had a great quote on the issue of reformists....
"... people who pronounce themselves in favor of the legislative reform in place of and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modification of the old society."
Any real change implies the breakup of the world as one has always known it, the loss of all that gave one an identity, the end of safety. And at such a moment, unable to see and not daring to imagine what the future will now bring forth, one clings to what one knew, or dreamed that one possessed. Yet, it is only when a man is able, without bitterness or self-pity, to surrender a dream he has long possessed that he is set free - he has set himself free - for higher dreams, for greater privileges.”
-James Baldwin
"We change ideas like neckties."
- E.M. Cioran
ah sorry, i'm tired and misread the tone of your post. apologies if my response seemed rude.
as it happens this is something i have been thinking about recently, in particular re: "anti-austerity" movements. i said in the thread on the "people's assembly" in the upcoming events forum that i would start a thread on it, probably will tomorrow. but no, it is an interesting discussion.
Until now, the left has only managed capital in various ways; the point, however, is to destroy it.
That RL quote is dealing with the historical usage of the term 'reformism,' the mistake is understandable, but the OP was talking about the more modern usage of the term and the connotations it now carries with it.
It's important to help out the proletariat whenever it is possible, no matter how miniscule the reform.
