Reform and Reformism

To those who have spent time listening to different arguments between Socialists, the idea of Reform can seem like a fairly beat down topic. To many, those who are critical and revolutionary give off an air of anti-reform. However, more than often this is not the case. It is a misconception, of no fault to the person misconceiving. It is a product of non-clarification. And so this article will try to clarify, and ensure that no one gets an obscured message.

It is fundamental to understand what Reform is, first and foremost. Reform, or Amendment, is when a piece of legislation is changed or dissolved. One reform, for example, was when Women and Blacks won the right to vote. Another reform is the 8 hour day. These are reforms which we working class members fought for and won. Other reforms; Work Choices (in Australia), Goods and Services Tax, Carbon Trading Schemes and Anti-Terror laws (Such as the U.S Patriot Act), which are handed down by the State.

Already we can see a fundamental difference between reforms we have fought for, and reforms given to us through policy of the top-down parliamentarian. As we can see, there is always a string attached in the interests of the State. There is always a string attached in the interest of profits for big business, or there is a string attached which says, “This will not actually change anything. This is to save face, and we do not mind because the costs for this reform will be passed on to the workers/taxpayers.”

A good reform is one that is forced. Through demonstration, or workers’ strikes, the State and/or Bosses are backed into a corner, and must concede our demand. A bad reform is one where we are completely cut out of the loop, and it is spoon fed to us, whether it is dog-poo puree or not.

Most, if not all, Parliamentary parties have a concerntration of bad reform under their belts. The problem with Parliamentarians is that their interests are the same as those of the ones who maintain dominion. The ones who control the global economy. This is why we see a constant right leaning favor toward Big Business instead of the ‘little person.'

To understand why, you need to understand that the State was never a third party, neutral party. It was always their party. It cannot be our party because we did not create it. And more over, the existence of such a third party simply means; that there is irreconcilable class warfare that must be mediated. And we all know that if it served our interests, we certainly would not keep the enemy alive and kicking. Unfortunately for the enemy, it just so happens they require us. We however, do not require them. (Further reading on the State – The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State by Fredrick Engels.)

On to Reformism. Reformism is a particular political ideology that suggests that (particularly with Reformist/Democratic Socialists), those whose interests are apparently being served, need not participate. Reformism requires, rather, that those interested parties not participate. Reformist Parties are parties who do not see the need to mobilise a mass of people. They do not see the need to activate the class consciousness of the working class. Instead, due to their reluctance to (much of the time) even deal with the working class, they attempt to subdue it. For the working class to mobilise, the Reformist must lose ground. For the reformist attempts to represent the working class, whilst attempting to convince capital that it should be at the top. – Here we need to point out that it is impossible for any party to rise to the top, and maintain leadership of parliament if it does not serve the interests of Capital. We have seen the results of a haphazard ability to serve capital before, and it ends with sackings and military coups – So again, not a chance. Thereby, it is either predetermined by the party, or is inevitable that a reformist party will in the end serve capital. Alternatively, rather than serve capital, they may attempt to control it as Stalin and Mao did. Regardless, Reformist politics are incapable of bringing an end to Capitalism, as they have not the mettel to challenge the system. They do not point out its contradictions any more than they do praise them. They do not militantly oppose the system, and as such do not inspire workers to oppose the system either.

So now it is about the right time to explain the position of the Revolutionaries. There are some revolutionary parties which do jump to an absolute, resolute, non-reform stand-point. Many of these groups believe they can create a movement out of thin-air. Or that they can inspire workers without having any victories intermediately. Obviously, these people are full of shit.

A revolutionary socialist organisation, with the right politics, will understand that reform is an important piece to the puzzle of working class consciousness. These organisations and parties understand that it is imperative that reform be won. That workers are convinced to fight for them. As we can see in recent times, with no fighting force, with no opposition visable to the majority, many workers become disillusioned, or if they become militant, their efforts become scattered, disperse and are wasted. The momentum is not kept. This is largely the fault of Trade Unions not being willing to oppose business. This is also partially due to attacks on workers rights and unions since the 60s.

The goal of the Revolutionary is to refine that collective class consciousness through struggle. And one of the best ways to refine it is by agitating toward reform in favor of workers. We however, do not claim ‘vote!’ as the Trade Union leaders had during an anti-Howard’s Work Choices campaign in Australia leading up to the 2007 election. We say, “Fight!” I have not been to a demonstration where my organisation has not yelled at the top of our lungs and thusly agitated others to do so too, “How are we gonna get it?! Fight for it!”

Time and time again, we have seen that revolutionary organisations, with good politics have been able to agitate some of the most spectacular demonstrations in the past century. And we have seen that the only way to achieve good, quality reforms is through revolutionary political agitation.

It is only through this means, that revolution becomes possible. By agitating for a fight that can be won, baby steps, which then become strides. The problem with reformism is that its means become its ends. It is non-sustainable. It relies on the Capitalist political structure, it cuts out the strongest economic and political force which opposes the bourgeoisie by its own interests, and it does not have the means to fight against attacks on reforms won (as shown time and time again by labor governments across the world, by communist parties across the world, and by the democratic parties across the world.)

If this has clarified anything, I hope at the least it is my own stand point. I hope that this piece clarifies why I oppose the Communist governments of Venezuela, or Cuba. Of parties asking for our vote instead of asking for our raised fists. Democratic Socialists, Counter-revolutionaries who use revolutionary rhetoric, Centrists, Left-leaning right wing ‘workers’ parties.’ The lot of them be damned. I oppose them because they do not represent the majority. They do not represent international socialism. I oppose them because they would just as quickly defeat a working class uprising as the beougeoisie scumbags who oppress and exploit us already.

So let’s fight on, for reform, and for revolution! And while we’re at it, let’s destroy reformism in the process.