Reform: What's its Purpose?
Posted 6th June 2012 at 07:10 by Le Socialiste
The following is lifted from a post I made to a thread on reformism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/futility-e...140/index.html):
Progressive reforms, while not ideal, are of some importance. Their significance is twofold: to serve as a rallying point from which further actions may be formulated and acted out (many of which lead away from the drudgery and defeatism so prevalent in electoral politics), while serving as a barometer of public opinion. In no way is this an endorsement of a solely electoral strategy. While many to the right (i.e. liberals, moderates, conservatives) hold several misconceptions about the effectiveness of reformism, it is absolutely essential for the left to dispel any illusions amongst its own base. Reformism may at points end up 'improving' the material state of society without fully altering the fundamental position of one's class. Reformists seek to renegotiate the terms of exploitation, not abolish it. They're typically never even aware that that's all they are doing. The futility of reformism doesn't signal the left's refusal to work within its boundaries; it merely entails a different form of organization that's ultimately necessary in order to mobilize beyond the defensiveness of electoral strategies.
Reforms are won when the ranks of any given movement are organized, especially in periods of instability. The ruling-class will only concede the most radical of terms to society when it is at its most vulnerable. This usually occurs during periods of degradation and contraction, as the state is overwhelmed with the duties imposed on it to keep order while guarding against any sudden groundswell of anti-establishment sentiment. It is then that the capitalist appears to have a 'change of heart,' conceding some of the most precious privileges and liberties when all other forms of repression have failed. Up against the stiff resistance of the population, the ruling-class has in such historical moments withdrawn without fully relinquishing its hold over the institutional foundations of the state, retreating in the hopes that it may gradually reassert itself in fields of public policy and discourse. Eventually it may hope to dilute the movement, reigning it in to the point of irrelevancy. Thus popular upsurges of workers' sentiments contain the embryonic foundations of a new system of organization without wholly realizing it. Reforms can, in relation to their historical and material contexts, provide the means through which public opinion may be turned leftward - but they can't in any real way provide significant forms of relief for the working-class. Eventually the ruling-class will right itself and it will, through the state, attack the 'gains' made by the proletariat until they are nonexistent.
Thus the Chilean revolution of 1971-73 ended in a coup d'état; the Portuguese uprisings of 1974-75 resulted in a gradual reassertion of bourgeois oversight over the means of production and state governance; the German people's revolts after WWI saw the initial collapse and resurgence of an aggressive ruling-class that looked to the right to sustain it; the Arab Spring began with a rise in social forms of organization, militancy, and international support, yet now struggles against a concerted effort by the global elite to reestablish control over the movement; Occupy Wall Street, Quebec's student strike, and the deepening pushback in Greece and the Eurozone against austerity all signaled (and continue to show) that reformism goes but two ways: 1) against a brick wall of state resistance, intimidation, and repression, or 2) initial success, followed by a slew of attacks and rollbacks that render any gains useless. Your friend's/acquaintance's argument ultimately folds beneath the weight of its idealism and lack of evidence. Electoral strategies as a sole means of 'progressive development' (whatever that means) are a dead end as far as a historical-material analysis goes. He or she appears to have failed to factor in the conditions in which these reforms were made. Some questions would be: when did these reforms happen? By what forms or means were they fought for? What was the condition of the state and the ruling financial class at the time of their passage? Where are these reforms now? Have they held up, and if so how have they benefited their target audience(s)? If not, how come? What factors contributed to their dilution and/or demise? These are important questions to ask. Reforms can point to the political direction of the working-class and serve as an indicator of where it's at organizationally*, but they cannot lift the people beyond the material boundaries of their exploitation - nor can they redefine the terms of society's collective standing in any serious or meaningful way.
* Greece is a notable example. Syriza has come out on top in recent polls, indicating a general trajectory towards the left by the Greek working-class. Syriza itself has been quick to assure international markets and the troika that it only seeks to renegotiate the terms laid out by Germany and the IMF for austerity, not to abandon the measures themselves. Alexis Tsipras, a leader of the organization, has met with Francois Hollande of the French Socialist Party (PS), as well as several pseudo-leftist groups throughout Europe. He most recently held talks with the Greek Defense Ministry and army high command, in what can only be interpreted as a move to assuage any fears or doubts about Syriza's intentions. Syriza's popularity by no means indicates that revolution is just around the corner; rather, it highlights the general atmosphere permeating Greek social tensions, bringing the dissatisfaction of the working-class once again to the forefront while retaining an ever evolving political consciousness that may potentially result in an all-out confrontation that moves beyond faith in the electoral.
Progressive reforms, while not ideal, are of some importance. Their significance is twofold: to serve as a rallying point from which further actions may be formulated and acted out (many of which lead away from the drudgery and defeatism so prevalent in electoral politics), while serving as a barometer of public opinion. In no way is this an endorsement of a solely electoral strategy. While many to the right (i.e. liberals, moderates, conservatives) hold several misconceptions about the effectiveness of reformism, it is absolutely essential for the left to dispel any illusions amongst its own base. Reformism may at points end up 'improving' the material state of society without fully altering the fundamental position of one's class. Reformists seek to renegotiate the terms of exploitation, not abolish it. They're typically never even aware that that's all they are doing. The futility of reformism doesn't signal the left's refusal to work within its boundaries; it merely entails a different form of organization that's ultimately necessary in order to mobilize beyond the defensiveness of electoral strategies.
Reforms are won when the ranks of any given movement are organized, especially in periods of instability. The ruling-class will only concede the most radical of terms to society when it is at its most vulnerable. This usually occurs during periods of degradation and contraction, as the state is overwhelmed with the duties imposed on it to keep order while guarding against any sudden groundswell of anti-establishment sentiment. It is then that the capitalist appears to have a 'change of heart,' conceding some of the most precious privileges and liberties when all other forms of repression have failed. Up against the stiff resistance of the population, the ruling-class has in such historical moments withdrawn without fully relinquishing its hold over the institutional foundations of the state, retreating in the hopes that it may gradually reassert itself in fields of public policy and discourse. Eventually it may hope to dilute the movement, reigning it in to the point of irrelevancy. Thus popular upsurges of workers' sentiments contain the embryonic foundations of a new system of organization without wholly realizing it. Reforms can, in relation to their historical and material contexts, provide the means through which public opinion may be turned leftward - but they can't in any real way provide significant forms of relief for the working-class. Eventually the ruling-class will right itself and it will, through the state, attack the 'gains' made by the proletariat until they are nonexistent.
Thus the Chilean revolution of 1971-73 ended in a coup d'état; the Portuguese uprisings of 1974-75 resulted in a gradual reassertion of bourgeois oversight over the means of production and state governance; the German people's revolts after WWI saw the initial collapse and resurgence of an aggressive ruling-class that looked to the right to sustain it; the Arab Spring began with a rise in social forms of organization, militancy, and international support, yet now struggles against a concerted effort by the global elite to reestablish control over the movement; Occupy Wall Street, Quebec's student strike, and the deepening pushback in Greece and the Eurozone against austerity all signaled (and continue to show) that reformism goes but two ways: 1) against a brick wall of state resistance, intimidation, and repression, or 2) initial success, followed by a slew of attacks and rollbacks that render any gains useless. Your friend's/acquaintance's argument ultimately folds beneath the weight of its idealism and lack of evidence. Electoral strategies as a sole means of 'progressive development' (whatever that means) are a dead end as far as a historical-material analysis goes. He or she appears to have failed to factor in the conditions in which these reforms were made. Some questions would be: when did these reforms happen? By what forms or means were they fought for? What was the condition of the state and the ruling financial class at the time of their passage? Where are these reforms now? Have they held up, and if so how have they benefited their target audience(s)? If not, how come? What factors contributed to their dilution and/or demise? These are important questions to ask. Reforms can point to the political direction of the working-class and serve as an indicator of where it's at organizationally*, but they cannot lift the people beyond the material boundaries of their exploitation - nor can they redefine the terms of society's collective standing in any serious or meaningful way.
* Greece is a notable example. Syriza has come out on top in recent polls, indicating a general trajectory towards the left by the Greek working-class. Syriza itself has been quick to assure international markets and the troika that it only seeks to renegotiate the terms laid out by Germany and the IMF for austerity, not to abandon the measures themselves. Alexis Tsipras, a leader of the organization, has met with Francois Hollande of the French Socialist Party (PS), as well as several pseudo-leftist groups throughout Europe. He most recently held talks with the Greek Defense Ministry and army high command, in what can only be interpreted as a move to assuage any fears or doubts about Syriza's intentions. Syriza's popularity by no means indicates that revolution is just around the corner; rather, it highlights the general atmosphere permeating Greek social tensions, bringing the dissatisfaction of the working-class once again to the forefront while retaining an ever evolving political consciousness that may potentially result in an all-out confrontation that moves beyond faith in the electoral.
Total Comments 0
Comments
Total Trackbacks 0
