Revolutionary Reformism

nb: immediately below this contribution of Lev's is another essay by Wes Bishop. Wes considers the question of reform or revolution from a liberal perspective. It's well worth the read.

Introduction to the problem

The debate of revolutionary or reformist approaches to social change have been argued through the ages and has become most pertinent since the bourgeoise revolutions and in particular with the development of democratic reforms during the latter half of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century. The debate certainly gained prominence with the the unification of the revolutionary Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany, led by Bebel and Liebknecht, and the reformist General German Workers' Association originally established by Lassalle. One of Marx's greatest works, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), in which he firmly established his 'third phase' (libertarian socialist) thinking, is a response to that unification. In the turn of the twentieth century the debate continued on one side of Eduard Bernstein's Evolutionary Socialism (1899) and Rosa Luxembourg's critique, the equally bluntly titled Reform or Revolution (1900).



To give a very simple summary, the revolutionary perspective argued that socialism can only be won through the forced overthrow of the ruling class, whereas the reformist perspective argues that socialism can develop over time with the gradual institutionalisation of more democratic rights. Related topics include political disposition of varying degrees of conservatism versus radicalism; debates over the psychological effects of State institutions, from insidiously corrupting to subtly influential; of political realism between principles and pragmatism; of class relations, conflict and the capacity of different classes to implement social change; in political organisation, between vanguard elites versus mass parties, and, on the highest level, the debate over the foundations of society itself whether natural, technological, institutional, relations, or ideas.

Of course, there is no suggestion that the following is anything but a brief sketch to the problem, a somewhat frustrated expression of personal experiences in both reformist and revolutionary politics, a discussion of the purpose of a revolutionary approach, and a conclusion that hopes to transcend some of the common problems through 'revolutionary reformism'. The notion of transcending, or overcoming, or even better still to use Hegel's phrase from the dialectical method Aufhebung is quite deliberate, in contrast to the erroneous assertion of a 'synthesis' through partial adaption of the thesis and antithesis. As much as Trotsky argued against "No common platform with the Social Democracy, or with the leaders of the German trade unions, no common publications, banners, placards!" from a revolutionary perspective he was also prepared to argue in favour of co-ordinated action "March separately, but strike together! Agree only how to strike, whom to strike, and when to strike!" ("For a Workers' United Front Against Fascism", 1931).

In decades of political involvement I am yet to see Trotsky's dictum seriously taken up by self-proclaimed revolutionary organisations in advanced capitalist states. Determined not to dirty their hands with actual governance, they are hopelessly split on relatively minimal differences and prone towards infiltrating social movements for the purpose of recruitment, rather than social change itself. The revolutionary assertions bring no comfort either; political programmes which are ill-considered and idealistic. By the same token, equal condemnation but of a different sort, can be levelled at reformist organisations. Highly institutionalised, they typically avoid involvement in extraparliamentary activism to engage in the byzantine labyrinth of State power for minimal and specific changes rather than seeking the systematic basis for the problems to begin with; as Henry David Thoreau remarked in Walden (1854): "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root".

Revolution for What?

For all the discussion involved in the debate of revolution or reform, rarely is the meaning of revolution, the purpose of revolution, or the the causes of successful revolutions addressed. An exception to this is Hannah Arendt, whose classic study On Revolution (1963) is required reading. We understand, of course, the term revolution from its origins in astronomy but often the metaphor of a cyclical returning is avoided. This should not be the case, for the purpose of the cycle is a returning to fundamental values, the "organising principles of society" (to use Jurgen Habermas' term from Legitimation Crisis, 1973). Correctly identifying what these organising principles are should determine if change is essential and therefore determine, likewise, whether revolution is a necessity.

The usual Marxist-inspired evaluation of this question is that our society is a capitalist one, where the means of production are held in private hands and that this is the foundation of everything else that follows. Marx's famous distinction between the social relations of the economic base and the legal and political infrastructure (c.f., Contribution to A Critique of Political Economy, 1859) is the foundation of such an analysis. The argument is that regardless of varying degrees of liberalism in a society and modest victories by reformists, it is still fundamentally a capitalist one, which ultimately must be overthrown by revolution. Despite its merits and insights, there is fundamental problems with this analysis. The "economic base" is a conflation between the social relations of natural resources and those of human labour; an error in differentiating between the two results in a confusion of economic classes and, as a result, political economy.

This is no superior source to understanding political economy of course, than the classical school of economics who dedicated significant time to the question. The debate which ran from the French physiocrat Turgot, to Adam Smith and finally to Henry George was ultimately unambiguous; that individuals can belong to multiple economic classes that are workers, capitalist and landlord, their contribution to production is labour, capital and land, their receipt is wages, profit and rent. Moral justification was sought - and found - in the return to wages and profit, but not in the case of rent. Yet the conflation of land and capital into a single unit of analysis by both vulgar Marxists and the equally vulgar neoclassical economists blunted this insight in favour of revolution and war that dominated the first half of the twentieth century.

Ultimately, "social relations" are political rather economic. Economic systems rise from political systems rather than the other way around. In this sense, the liberal-bourgeois revolutions of the eighteenth century, specifically the French and American, provide insight to this question by looking at their results. Even considering the particular objective circumstances (the French republic surrounded by enemies, the American with but a modicum of local opposition), the relative success and failure of the two can be assessed in terms of their approach to liberty and the way they sought to establish a new society. In general, the more successful elements where those which ultimately provided the greatest respect to "negative freedom" and left firm foundations for the individual to engage in their own "pursuit of happiness" - such deliberate limitations on government and opportunity set as constitutio libertatis providing a novus ordo saeclorum (these being chapter headings from Arendt). Without this orientation, revolutions that impose a supposed 'general will' of society onto others by an elite inevitably end in disaster; "Thinkers prepare the revolution; bandits carry it out." (Mariano Azuela, The Flies, 1918). Unless the State, as Lenin pointed out in his 'almost anarchist' text State and Revolution (1917), begins to wither away from day one with its machinery smashed, the old diseases of control and authoritarianism will arise again (an unfortunate prediction with the Soviet Union).

Although those on the political left are often loathe to admit it, the most successful revolution of modernity has been that of the United States. When neo-conservative forces attempt to impose their will on the populous, they find that the constitution stands in their way. Sometimes they do have victories - such as the subversion of the Second Amendment, which was designed to minimise the influence of a standing army and imperialist wars. Often they must dig in their heels and make clearly ridiculous interpretations, such as the application of obscenity laws as a 'public health' issue over the First Amendment and, even more so, the Dredd Scott case where the courts determined - at least for a while, as it helped lead to the U.S. Civil War - that the Founding Fathers could not have possibly meant negroes were to be included in the opening of the Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."). Undoubtedly one day there very well might be a U.S. government that so ignores the constitutional rights of the people that violent action may be needed to remove such an administration from office; but even the possibility of such an event does not deny the strength of the lasting institution of a constitution founded on the principle of liberty.

Liberty and Commonwealth

The purpose of political action is freedom, whether that is in the negative sense, reducing the ability of the State to interfere in the free and consensual relations of autonomous citizens, or in the positive sense, whereby the government provides freely available enabling infrastructure, both social and physical, to its citizenry. As fiscal policy, provision of the latter does not necessarily require the reduction of the former, although it is certainly the case at the moment. The abolition of the landlord class, and the socialisation of resource rents at a freely-determined market value can certainly provide positive freedom without the current (effective) corvée labour of workers and investor to the coffers of the State. It also provides the most workable incentive structures to ensure environmental sustainability.

Likewise, the purpose of all political organisations is to create the conditions where they are no longer needed. Justified cynicism may be given to Pitt The Younger's remark that one day parliament would complete all the laws necessary and thus dissolve itself, but as a task for political radicals the spirit of this intent is requisite, as the strength of liberty depends on the involvement of the public. 'Vanguardism' by a cadre elite, is insufficient to guarantee that a revolutionary spirit is not hijacked by authoritarian opportunists, regardless of perceived advantages in a division of labour. It is not therefore "the Party" that should seek to achieve power on behalf of the masses, but rather such political parties should be engaging in a constant campaign that they masses become their own vanguard, led by their own "organic intellectuals", to use Gramsci's phrase. Ideally, the Party should cease to exist after a revolution; if it has fulfilled its revolutionary potential, the people will know how to manage their own affairs.

In conclusion, with a interesting management and economics intepretation, Mario Ferrero's recent essay Revolution or Reform? Socialism's Dilemma as Rational Choice Problem (in the journal Homo Oeconomicus, 2004) is worthy of reference. It argues that the revolutionary party is a producer cooperative that requiress a parallel commercial reform sector to provide worker incentives and consumer trust. Success in the reform sector, along with a sorely lacking proper use of public democratic institutions (Georg Lukács's The Question of Parliamentarianism, 1919 is critical reasoning in this regard) creates loyalty and attachment to those more radical proposals not yet implemented. In a liberal-democratic state (and not dictatorships which do require revolutions), with their supposed organising principle based on personal freedom and social democracy, there is far greater opportunity for extending these principles to their logical conclusion.

Reform, Revolution, and Reflection

Below is a left-liberal critique from Wes Bishop on the theme of "reform versus revolution". Later tonight Lev Lafayette will be posting a radical/socialist response to that same theme. John Passant has also indicated an interest in replying by the end of the week. Please visit regularly to follow the debate... All readers on the broad left are welcome to contribute to the debate...

Recently Tristan e-mailed me with the request of taking part in a debate about the legitimacy of socialism and whether or not as a stated goal it should be achieved through the avenues of reform or the raging straits of revolution. Upon approaching the answering of this interrogative I came to several conclusions quite quickly, a process that is indispensable for a commentator. The first conclusion I drew was that I am not a socialist. Therefore, to answer the question of how best to achieve socialism is akin to asking the King of Saudi Arabia the best pathway to western style democracy. This first conclusion left me at somewhat of a loss of words, because how can an American capitalist be trusted with the answering of such a question?

As is typical with myself I put the dilemma on the backburner of my mind and let it ferment for a few days before returning. I was not disappointed. Returning to the question I remembered one of the wise lessons my former professor, Dr. Ralph Carbone, had taught me year ago. For two years I had the benefit of learning from this master of rhetoric (i.e. person who LOVED to argue). In his classes he had a fascinating way of educating people about an issue. Walking into the classroom he would announce loudly, “This side of the room your pro-[this], this side your pro-[that]!” It wouldn’t matter what subject, evolution, abortion, immigration, the nature of beauty, all of that was reduced to what side of the room you were sitting in at the time of his announcement. Quickly, people would scramble to get to the side of the room they most strongly agreed with and then the debate would be ready to begin. On several occasions I purposefully sat on the other side of the room, than that of the one I agreed with, because as I found out I could learn much more about an issue (and subsequently myself) by arguing a point I did not agree with. Time and again I would spend entire class sessions, passionately defending intelligent design (that was a treat) or the right of the state to regulate what women can do with their bodies. What astounded me the most was not the fact that I could effectively defend a view point I disagreed with but that movements and philosophies that I found and still find completely incompetent could have valid objections. This realization hit me full force when Dr. Carbone and I began going back and forth over the issue of evolution vs. intelligent design. Typically Dr. Carbone would raise a point, I would counter it, and then he would come back with another counterpoint that shut my argument down. Yet, on this occasion after Dr. Carbone had countered, I came back with another whole new point and effectively refuted his argument. Silence fell over the room as everyone turned to look at me, and Dr. Carbone contemplated for a moment, finally resorting to a fancy two step to avoid the point. I sat stunned with what I had just accomplished; I an upstart sophomore from south eastern Ohio had just shut down a fully fledged Ph.D.

The point of my inclusion of this trip down memory lane in this essay is this, although I do not agree with socialism attempting to argue its case (and how to achieve it in a society) taught me much about the movement and led me to an inevitable conclusion in answering the question, REFORM or REVOLUTION?

Put simply, revolution is not the answer, and reform is the path that should always be attempted, tirelessly and diligently. Now as an engaged reader the question naturally follows as to why this is the case? Why reform? Why not revolution? Is it not hypocritical for an American to condemn revolution, when the country all Americans belong too was born in the throes of revolt?

Again to answer it simply, no it is not hypocritical, and reform is the better path for many different reasons. First off it is not hypocritical because what the American founding fathers engaged in was a risky gambit that could have easily backfired and caused severe repercussions for generations and generations. Yet, the founding fathers were lucky, and more importantly pushed by the British to the point that revolution was the most viable solution for their people. In such a case revolution, unfortunately, was warranted, but as any quick survey of history will reveal, revolutions seldom end as well as America’s, with massive social upheavals and economic disparity being the norm instead of the exception.

Socialist that seek to enact their policies should remember this, as it is overly apparent in the western democracies that civic pathways are open to change. Granted this change can sometimes be frustratingly slow, but reform allows for something that revolution very seldom does. And that factor is the beneficial practice of clear reflection.

As the above story illustrates reflection allows for people to contemplate their situation, and their goals, learning about themselves and what they believe. Reform will allow for the enactors of policies to re-evaluate the course they have chosen, modifying it when necessary, and abandoning it when it is no longer fruitful. The members of my class that rushed quickly to their desired side of the classroom behaved much like revolutionaries. So sure where they of their paths that they felt that no further reflection was needed, no more contemplation warranted. A side was chosen, and that side was now to be defended until the end. Such is the case of revolution, for both parties involved.

For the actual merits of socialism, I will conclude with these parting thoughts-

Inside the United States today there is growing pressure to view our economic system (and the economic systems of the world) in a black and white fashion. This new dogma (or not so new dogma) reduces the world into the inaccurate description of pure capitalism, and pure socialism. In many ways this movement is a precursor to the revolutionary mentality, which pits one faction against another. Automatically, the culture of today is slapping labels on people and telling them, “Look, that person is the enemy, we need to oppose them.”

I speak on behalf of all common sense in America when I put forth the following claim, economics should never be a battleground of ideology, or politics. It should always be an objective approach to what is best for the people of a nation. There will be differences in opinion. There always are, but pretending that the States are teetering on the edge of Socialistic revolution is the same as believing that the U.S. is going to become an Islamic theocracy. Thankfully, many in my country have heeded the lesson of reform and have followed it.

Unfortunately, there are the red herring trumpeters who say Obama will make us socialist, because of the recent response to the economic crisis. However, let one thing be clear, although there is a lot of resentment in the U.S. for “socialism” in the financial and auto industries it should be remembered that the free markets asked for this government assistance. Washington did not storm the lobbies of Detroit and Wall Street; the free market came to the halls of Capital Hill seeking government aid and intervention. Socialism has won an important victory through patient reform on this occurrence because it is vindicated in the conviction that markets are incapable of regulating themselves, and that governments have a fundamental right to protect their citizenry. This tip of the hat to socialism would render from my fellow capitalist a quick condemnation that includes some benign comparison to Stalin. To this I say the following, criticizing socialism because of Stalin is paramount to denouncing democracy because of Iraq.

I stand after all of this an even more radical moderate in my economic philosophy. Although a capitalist, I am quick to denounce the drastic ramblings of Ayn Rand and state that to the contrary of what Objectivist teach, mixed economies are a sign of a viable nation and responsible government.

I have reached these conclusions through reflection, which has been permitted because reform has ruled over revolution. If a young writer can benefit from this practice both now, and as a sophomore years ago, imagine what a world full of individuals could gain from the same feat.

-Wes Bishop