Reform or Revolution?

After the biggest capitalist crisis in generations and the onslaught of cuts faced by working people, imposed by the ultra rich con-dem government, its nessecery to ask the question, how can working and young people change society into a more equal and fairer society? Do we go about pressuring for social reforms, or do we need a revolution to overhaul the capitalist system?

Well as Rosa Luxemburg said; “The struggle for reforms is its means, the social revolution is its aim”.

To argue for reform is to say that capitalism has reached a stage where it’s no longer nessecery to call for a revolution, but that enough reforms could be put into place, such as more democratic rights, more social welfare programs so that socialism would evolve over time. However, through revolution and overhaul of the capitalist system to be replaced by democratic socialism, the power would be effectively and ultimately be moved from the super rich to the working classes.

In times of economic prosperity and when workers are winning reforms, reformists argue that capitalism has created new tools, such as trade unions, electoral and legal reforms – that can allow the evolution of society towards socialism possible. However, we are not in a time of prosperity, we are in a time of austerity. The anti trade union laws implemented by Thatcher, were not repealed by labour. It’s likely that Osborne will fulfil Thatcher’s dream of crushing unions further. This is why we need to fight back, because this is an attack on our democratic rights. If we were to fight back making small gains, then the capitalists will fight back to take those gains away. This is why we need a revolutionary movement, so that the balance of power is shifted to the mass working classes. As Rosa Luxemburg said; that reform proposed changing the sea of capitalist bitterness into a sea of socialist sweetness, by progressively pouring in bottles of social reformist lemonade”

To say that capitalism has developed so that revolution is unessecery is inaccurate. The role of trade unions, elections and the winning of reforms are still relevant to their roles 100 years go. The trade union is a still a body where workers can come together, and through trade unions they will come to their own conclusions that they are part of a class. Through struggle for reforms, they realize their class power. However, they also realize and learn the limitations of reform, and the need for actual conquest of power, or in other words, revolutionary change. Luxemburg associated union struggles to the “labor of Sisyphus”, a character who was con-demed to push a stone up a hill over and over again. She argued that the same applies to reforms won through the ballot box.

By proposing that trade unions or electoral reforms are enough to achieve a kind of socialism, reformists missed the importance of struggle in achieving reforms. They saw unions as the means of suppressing the contradictions in capitalism between the workers and bosses. Revolutionaries, on the other hand, see unions as one means by which these contradictions can be pushed into the open and organized around. The truth is that struggles for reform, by their very nature, can launch an offensive against the attacks of the profit system, but not the profit system itself.

Reforms don’t provide a “more realistic” way to socialism, but had thrown out the prospect of socialism. Just look at the labour party, traditionally it was the working man’s party with a crusade of reforms towards social democracy, however today the labour party operates in the interests of the banks and big business. As Luxemburg said those preferring reform over social revolution do not choose a calmer road to the goal of socialism, but a different goal all together. While reformists fight make gains in the wage labour system, revolutionaries fight to abolish exploitation. While reformists fight to suppress the abuses of capitalism, revolutionaries fight to suppress capitalism itself.

But we shouldn’t simply write off the importance in struggles for reforms. These struggles are central in rallying people to the goal of socialism. In struggles today if we avoid movements for social reform, then we put ourselves at the sidelines of movements and we will have little influence over anyone today. But when we do put ourselves into struggles, we should always be thinking what the next step of the struggle is. Let’s take the student protests for example, while it was a single issue, it’s important to link up the student protests with trade union protest, because it’s not an overall victory if you win the arguments for free education, but when you come out of university there are no jobs because trade unions couldn’t prevent job losses?

In conclusion without thinking about the next step in a reforming movement and we view the future as a succession of reforms, then we run the risk of never convincing anyone of the need to get rid of capitalism. A conclusion that Luxemburg arrived to is that a key part of gaining socialism is the role of a revolutionary socialist organisation in convincing others that they should join the fight for a socialist world.