Thoughts on Parliamentarianism

Well comrades, time for another rambling entry to the never-ending journey leftward

Quote:

A democratic republic is the best possible shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this very best shell, it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions, or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it.

- Lenin

The other day I was reading Lenin's State and Revolution, and I stumbled across this line of text by him. The moment that I read it, it was as if a lightbulb had gone off in my head. Let me explain.

My first experience with anything from the Left was reading Eduard Bernstein's Evolutionary Socialism. The whole idea of using the electoral process to gradually enact policies, one reform at a time, that would bring about a socialist mode of production struck a chord with my fiercely pacifist tendencies. It also seemed to coincide with my then-budding obsession with existentialism à la Jean-Paul Sartre, with the period of gradualist change being a period through which we could gain existential definition through our choices. But, after working on grassroots campaigns for the Democratic Party and finally getting my hands on a copy of the Manifesto several years ago, I was able to view a socialist alternative to Bernstein, one that recognized that utilizing the State to abolish the State was doomed to a host of material problems and rested on a revolutionary foundation instead of a gradualist one.

Since then, years have passed - college, additional literature, joining and meeting with the DSA and the SPUSA, and so on. It now makes sense to me, after seeing time pass and hearing self-described "progressive" Democratic candidates promise so much change and reform, that capitalism is not going to be abolished depending upon who we elect into office. It does not matter if that person is a nationalist Republican that identifies with the right-wing of the Tea Party, nor will it make a difference if the person is a partisan, liberal Democrat who jumps at the change to create another social program. While the conservatives openly preach capitalism, the liberals (and I use the term "liberal" in the context of contemporary social liberalism, not Enlightenment-era classical liberalism) claim that their oh-so-tepid reforms will bring about a higher standard of living, a gentler market, and a more equitable distribution of wealth. In reality, though, those reforms do nothing to replace capitalism with an alternative mode of production - all reformism drains the proletariat of its revolutionary zeal by forcing it to accept, piece by piece, a "softer" form of capitalism that is still, unfortunately, capitalism.

Capitalism is capitalism, regardless of who is in charge of the system. Republicans perpetuate capitalism. Democrats perpetuate capitalism. There is no fundamental difference between the two.

Do I still think that we should advocate for reformism? Absolutely. But we should never do so under the impression that gradualism itself is going to bring about socialism. It may make the lives of the proletariat ever-so-slightly better by making their healthcare slightly more comprehensive, their tax dollars a little better well spent, or their Social Security a tad more solvent. But, in the end, it does nothing to erase the exploitation of the capitalist mode of production, and it does nothing to fundamentally re-orientate the economy so that it serves the interests of the working class rather than the bourgeois class.

I think that anyone who argues that we should not try to influence the political conversation by advocating things such as a national single-payer healthcare, demilitarization, global nuclear disarmament, and comprehensive and solvent social security programs and the like are missing a key part of our vision. We want to raise the proletariat from its level of its current state of exploitative immiseration, and these things are instrumental in helping us socialists do so.

But we have to realize that a reformist tactic is not going to bring about socialism. The only way that there will ever be the establishment of a socialist mode of production will be through an international proletarian revolution. However, the discussion (and implementation) of reforms allow us to approach the subject of what does and does not work in the current economic system, and gives us the political climate necessary to propose alternatives. And, perhaps after having to have pointed out a large enough number of reforms or having pointed out several large, system-wide ones, the majority of the working class will begin to see that the economy is not built so as to serve their economic interests and that it is not sustainable.

Reformism will not create socialism, but it may crate the environment necessary for us to have the discussion about it - we may be able to capitalize on the pro-reform momentum and create a sustainable socialist movement. But, if there is one thing that we have to keep in mind, it is that, although we may think that our winning of healthcare reform, education reform, etc are progress for our cause because they (ever so slightly) improves the conditions of the working class, they also do us a disservice by leeching the proletariat of its revolutionary zeal by possibly making them complacent with temporary material gains. It is because of this that we cannot allow ourselves to ever use reformism as the primary tactic through which we get to socialism - it can be a tactic that we use, but it should not be the tactic that we use.

We can use reformism to a certain extent - by getting into office so that we can encourage de-militarization, disarmament, restricting police powers, cutting "Defense" funding, and so on. They're ways to chip away at the bourgeois establishment: our vote won't bring about socialism, but they can be a way of trying to weaken the military power of the State somewhat so that, when we do have our revolution, they won't have as much power as they would have had if we didn't. That being said, their power is still going to be incredible regardless.

I'll admit that I was an idealist and bought into the idea at first that universal suffrage was going to be enough to bring about socialism. My rationale was that a working class with the ability to vote would vote its way out of immiseration and into socialism, but I've since come to see how hopelessly foolish that is. As long as there is a bourgeois class that has control over the media, education, information distribution, communications, and the like, they'll be able to indoctrinate a large enough majority of the population to prevent any democratic transition to an alternative mode of production

Indeed, universal suffrage could possibly be seen as counter-productive to establishing socialism, because - if we are trying to bring it about in a mature, industrialized, democratic republic - the bourgeoisie could influence the proletariat's mindset to such a degree that the working class could use its majority vote to support, pass, and enact legislation that would legitimize capitalism, reinforce bourgeois dominance, and bring about a democratically-approved corporate police state. Although I consider myself a fierce advocate of democracy, we have to realize that the proletariat's vote could be swayed by the bourgeoisie to benefit the bourgeoisie. Voting itself will never bring about socialism.

There needs to be a revolution, that much is certain. There cannot be socialism without the violent overthrow of the State. But there are certain small steps that we can take now to prepare for the revolution, and weakening the State from inside seems awfully tempting.