Osterbaum
11-23-2012, 09:48 AM
So I recently joined a group where we meet up every other week to discuss a left-wing text we've read in anticipation of the meeting. We had our first meeting this week and the text we discussed was Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm). We specifically concentrated on chapters 7-10, but personally I've read the whole text. That isn't to say you can't ask for example about the significance of some specific terms.
So why am I sharing this on NPF? Because I think there is a distinct lack of understanding of some of aspects of and issues raised by socialism/communism, not specifically on the forums, but modern society as a whole. I feel this is a safe enough environment to discuss some of these things, and this reading group just basically makes it easy for me to choose the more specific topics and texts to accompany them.
So for starters, this does require a certain starting level, although not a very high one. So if for example you think that Obama is a socialist or that socialism is something like described by (American) conservatives, then I suggest you do some learning of your own before participating in this thread. I don't mean that as an insult or anything, it's just that I don't feel like explaining basics of political ideology to anyone whose only source of information on socialism has been Fox News or something.
So for starters, a short outline on the issues discussed in the text by Rosa Luxemburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg). Firstly, the text is in response to a contemporary of her's and a fellow member of the German Social Democratic Party Eduard Bernstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bernstein). Secondly, at the time Social Democracy was basically a synonym for Socialism and did not have the revisionist meaning it does in the context of today's social democratic political parties. Also if the word "revolution" to you automatically means a violent rebellion, I suggest you check the description of the word.
In the text Luxemburg argues against Bernsteins position of revisionism, saying that it's basically an acceptance of the capitalist system; a move away from the goal of achieving socialism and a move towards goals of simply reforming capitalism. By seeking to reform capitalism, eventually transforming it into socialism, was according to Luxemburg a futile effort that not only ignored the realities of capitalism but transformed Social Democracy from a revolutionary movement seeking to overthrow the bourgeoisie into a movement working in the confines of the very system it claimed to stand against.
Bernstein rejects the “theory of collapse” as an historic road toward socialism. Now what is the way to a socialist society that is proposed by his “theory of adaptation to capitalism”? Bernstein answers this question only by allusion. Konrad Schmidt, however, attempts to deal with this detail in the manner of Bernstein. According to him, “the trade union struggle for hours and wages and the political struggle for reforms will lead to a progressively more extensive control over the conditions of production,” and “as the rights of the capitalist proprietor will be diminished through legislation, he will be reduced in time to the role of a simple administrator.” “The capitalist will see his property lose more and more value to himself” till finally “the direction and administration of exploitation will be taken from him entirely” and “collective exploitation” instituted.
Therefore trade unions, social reforms and, adds Bernstein, the political democratisation of the State are the means of the progressive realisation of socialism.
But the fact is that the principal function of trade unions (and this was best explained by Bernstein himself in Neue Zeit in 1891) consists in providing the workers with a means of realising the capitalist law of wages, that is to say, the sale of their labour power at current market prices. Trade unions enable the proletariat to utilise at each instant, the conjuncture of the market. But these conjunctures – (1) the labour demand determined by the state of production, (2) the labour supply created by the proletarianisation of the middle strata of society and the natural reproduction of the working classes, and (3) the momentary degree of productivity of labour – these remain outside of the sphere of influence of the trade unions. Trade unions cannot suppress the law of wages. Under the most favourable circumstances, the best they can do is to impose on capitalist exploitation the “normal” limit of the moment. They have not, however, the power to suppress exploitation itself, not even gradually.
Legislative reform and revolution are not different methods of historic development that can be picked out at the pleasure from the counter of history, just as one chooses hot or cold sausages. Legislative reform and revolution are different factors in the development of class society. They condition and complement each other, and are at the same time reciprocally exclusive, as are the north and south poles, the bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Every legal constitution is the product of a revolution. In the history of classes, revolution is the act of political creation, while legislation is the political expression of the life of a society that has already come into being. Work for reform does not contain its own force independent from revolution. During every historic period, work for reforms is carried on only in the direction given to it by the impetus of the last revolution and continues as long as the impulsion from the last revolution continues to make itself felt. Or, to put it more concretely, in each historic period work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution. Here is the kernel of the problem.
In other words, by resorting to reform, which could only be done within the confines of the system, Social Democracy was essentially abandoning true opposition of capitalism. Luxemburg did not argue against reform itself, just as the only way of seeking socialism. She argued that it would be impossible to achieve socialism without a revolution, that reform alone would never achieve this goal because the bourgeoisie society would never allow the system mainly controlled by it's interests to overthrow itself.
It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms. A social transformation and a legislative reform do not differ according to their duration but according to their content. The secret of historic change through the utilisation of political power resides precisely in the transformation of simple quantitative modification into a new quality, or to speak more concretely, in the passage of an historic period from one given form of society to another.
That is why people who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society. If we follow the political conceptions of revisionism, we arrive at the same conclusion that is reached when we follow the economic theories of revisionism. Our program becomes not the realisation of socialism, but the reform of capitalism; not the suppression of the wage labour system but the diminution of exploitation, that is, the suppression of the abuses of capitalism instead of suppression of capitalism itself.
Hopefully that's enough to get a discussion going. The text itself obviously contains other arguments and more specifics. For example there is quite a bit of discussion on the role of Worker's Unions.
Even if other's don't feel like participating I'm sure Smarty will have something to say. Come on Smarty, let's see what you've got!
e: reguest thread name be changed to Left Discussion Group
So why am I sharing this on NPF? Because I think there is a distinct lack of understanding of some of aspects of and issues raised by socialism/communism, not specifically on the forums, but modern society as a whole. I feel this is a safe enough environment to discuss some of these things, and this reading group just basically makes it easy for me to choose the more specific topics and texts to accompany them.
So for starters, this does require a certain starting level, although not a very high one. So if for example you think that Obama is a socialist or that socialism is something like described by (American) conservatives, then I suggest you do some learning of your own before participating in this thread. I don't mean that as an insult or anything, it's just that I don't feel like explaining basics of political ideology to anyone whose only source of information on socialism has been Fox News or something.
So for starters, a short outline on the issues discussed in the text by Rosa Luxemburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg). Firstly, the text is in response to a contemporary of her's and a fellow member of the German Social Democratic Party Eduard Bernstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bernstein). Secondly, at the time Social Democracy was basically a synonym for Socialism and did not have the revisionist meaning it does in the context of today's social democratic political parties. Also if the word "revolution" to you automatically means a violent rebellion, I suggest you check the description of the word.
In the text Luxemburg argues against Bernsteins position of revisionism, saying that it's basically an acceptance of the capitalist system; a move away from the goal of achieving socialism and a move towards goals of simply reforming capitalism. By seeking to reform capitalism, eventually transforming it into socialism, was according to Luxemburg a futile effort that not only ignored the realities of capitalism but transformed Social Democracy from a revolutionary movement seeking to overthrow the bourgeoisie into a movement working in the confines of the very system it claimed to stand against.
Bernstein rejects the “theory of collapse” as an historic road toward socialism. Now what is the way to a socialist society that is proposed by his “theory of adaptation to capitalism”? Bernstein answers this question only by allusion. Konrad Schmidt, however, attempts to deal with this detail in the manner of Bernstein. According to him, “the trade union struggle for hours and wages and the political struggle for reforms will lead to a progressively more extensive control over the conditions of production,” and “as the rights of the capitalist proprietor will be diminished through legislation, he will be reduced in time to the role of a simple administrator.” “The capitalist will see his property lose more and more value to himself” till finally “the direction and administration of exploitation will be taken from him entirely” and “collective exploitation” instituted.
Therefore trade unions, social reforms and, adds Bernstein, the political democratisation of the State are the means of the progressive realisation of socialism.
But the fact is that the principal function of trade unions (and this was best explained by Bernstein himself in Neue Zeit in 1891) consists in providing the workers with a means of realising the capitalist law of wages, that is to say, the sale of their labour power at current market prices. Trade unions enable the proletariat to utilise at each instant, the conjuncture of the market. But these conjunctures – (1) the labour demand determined by the state of production, (2) the labour supply created by the proletarianisation of the middle strata of society and the natural reproduction of the working classes, and (3) the momentary degree of productivity of labour – these remain outside of the sphere of influence of the trade unions. Trade unions cannot suppress the law of wages. Under the most favourable circumstances, the best they can do is to impose on capitalist exploitation the “normal” limit of the moment. They have not, however, the power to suppress exploitation itself, not even gradually.
Legislative reform and revolution are not different methods of historic development that can be picked out at the pleasure from the counter of history, just as one chooses hot or cold sausages. Legislative reform and revolution are different factors in the development of class society. They condition and complement each other, and are at the same time reciprocally exclusive, as are the north and south poles, the bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Every legal constitution is the product of a revolution. In the history of classes, revolution is the act of political creation, while legislation is the political expression of the life of a society that has already come into being. Work for reform does not contain its own force independent from revolution. During every historic period, work for reforms is carried on only in the direction given to it by the impetus of the last revolution and continues as long as the impulsion from the last revolution continues to make itself felt. Or, to put it more concretely, in each historic period work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution. Here is the kernel of the problem.
In other words, by resorting to reform, which could only be done within the confines of the system, Social Democracy was essentially abandoning true opposition of capitalism. Luxemburg did not argue against reform itself, just as the only way of seeking socialism. She argued that it would be impossible to achieve socialism without a revolution, that reform alone would never achieve this goal because the bourgeoisie society would never allow the system mainly controlled by it's interests to overthrow itself.
It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms. A social transformation and a legislative reform do not differ according to their duration but according to their content. The secret of historic change through the utilisation of political power resides precisely in the transformation of simple quantitative modification into a new quality, or to speak more concretely, in the passage of an historic period from one given form of society to another.
That is why people who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society. If we follow the political conceptions of revisionism, we arrive at the same conclusion that is reached when we follow the economic theories of revisionism. Our program becomes not the realisation of socialism, but the reform of capitalism; not the suppression of the wage labour system but the diminution of exploitation, that is, the suppression of the abuses of capitalism instead of suppression of capitalism itself.
Hopefully that's enough to get a discussion going. The text itself obviously contains other arguments and more specifics. For example there is quite a bit of discussion on the role of Worker's Unions.
Even if other's don't feel like participating I'm sure Smarty will have something to say. Come on Smarty, let's see what you've got!
e: reguest thread name be changed to Left Discussion Group