From:    Ben Seattle 
To:      marxism-international
Subject: M-I: Reply to Nancy's query on meaning of "Reformism"
Date:    Wednesday, April 08, 1998 6:38 AM

Nancy:

>Here's a question for you: what exactly is "reformism"? Is it reformist 
>to advocate for women's rights, and to work for things like equal pay? 
>Is it reformist to work for increases in pay and benefits? For the 
>rights of labor unions? For affirmative action? For the environment?

Ben:
The term "reformism" is an unfortunate one in the respect that it
frequently gives rise to precisely this misunderstanding.  Reformism is
*not* the struggle for reforms.  The term "reformism" refers to the
belief that the working class can topple the bourgeoisie from power via
a series of gradual reforms and that *therefore* it is not necessary for
the working class to create the kind of organization that can withstand
repression and lead the workers in a successful revolutionary overthrow
of bourgeois rule.

What the ideology of reformism overlooks therefore, is that the
bourgeoisie is a class which is supremely well-organized and extremely
well-informed and highly conscious of its class interests.  It cannot be
"fooled" or "outsmarted" by schemes to gradually strip it of its power.
As such, the bourgeoisie has no intention of allowing itself to be
pushed aside peacefully.

In practice, reformism, as a guiding ideology, means to struggle within
whatever limits are acceptable to the bourgeoisie.  These limits are
both legal and "moral" (ie: not to overstep the bounds of bourgeois
respectibility).  In the reports we have gotten of the struggle of the
Australian dockworkers, for example, their struggle is hemmed in by the
law.  Mass actions that draw support from wide sections of workers (ie:
mass pickets, etc) are precisely what would assist their struggle and it
is for this reason that such actions are illegal.

The interests of the proletariat are definitely served by the struggle
for reforms, also known as the struggle for partial demands.  What is
considered key in communist tactics--is that the struggle is organized
around the goal of raising the workers' consciousness.  The workers win
*twice*.  The first victory is the partial demand, better pay,
conditions, rights and so forth.  An even greater victory is what the
workers *learn*--that they can only advance their material interests by
uniting together and fighting the class interests of the bourgeoisie in
whatever form it assumes in a particular struggle.  What else do workers
learn in such struggle ?  They learn their own strength and the power of
mass action.  They learn who their real friends and enemies are.  The
capitalists have on their side essentially all the institutions of
bourgeois society, the courts, police, press, etc (and usually the
workers' "leaders" also).

The irony is that the struggle for reforms is vastly better served by
*revolutionary tactics* (ie: tactics that revolve around the energy and
mass initiative of the workers) than *reformist tactics* (conducting the
struggle such that key events take place outside of the eyes and ears of
the workers and such that the prejudices of bourgeois society are
reinforced).

Reformism as an ideology cannot be separated from a strata (sometimes
called a "bribed strata" by marxists) that owes its material existence
to selling out or containing the struggle of the workers and which acts
as a vehicle for the promotion of this ideology.  The trade union
bureaucracy is probably the best example of this strata that I can think
of but there are a great variety.  Often members of this sellout strata
are "marxists".  Isn't that wonderful ?

I hope this helps a bit.  Some terms just are not intuitively obvious as
to what they mean.  I once had a friend who thought that "opportunism"
meant "taking advantage of oppotunities" (it usually means abandoning
fundamental principles in exchange for personal gain or for illusory
short-term gain for the movement).

I have often wondered if any different terms would be more clear but I
have always ended up concluding that there are no words that will work
better.  The issue is to bring these concepts to the masses and as they
engage in struggle I believe this will happen.

My web site has a list of terms that try to give a little more
background on some of these fundamental terms (as least as I understand
them).  You can check it out at www.Leninism.org

Thanks, also, for your query.  My guess is that you are not the only
reader of this list that didn't understand what this term meant.  But
you *were* the only person who asked.  ;-)

Sincerely,

Ben Seattle
----//-// 8.Apr.98 -- 6:30 am



     --- from list marxism-international@lists.village.virginia.edu ---