Once More about Reformism
[This is a translated version of an article from the Marxist magazine Sandhikshan published in Bengali--FAPP]
Introduction
?First of all, it should be noted that the current article is a modified version of an article published on the Bengali Marxist magazine Sandhikshan's website. A few days ago, an article was published in three installments in the web edition of Sandhikshan entitled "Red Star's self-written Marx Quotes: Once More About Reformism". The article was initiated with a quotation in the name of Marx published in Sangrami Sangbad, the mouthpiece of the West Bengal State Committee of the CPI (ML) Red Star organization. The boxed quote published in a few issues of Sangrami Sangbad was as follows, "Communism is fundamentally revolutionary: its followers value reform as a stepping stone to revolution. Social democrats are basically class compromisers and reformists. They talk of reform and work for reform to thwart the revolution." Karl Marx, the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte." (Source: Sangrami Sangbad, 25th July 2021, Page 8 and 14th March, 2021)
?The article in Sandhikshan showed that this quote was not from Marx in any way and could never belong to Marx. Further in another article published in a digital edition of Sangrami Sangbad last January (the article was also published on Facebook), it was admitted that the quotation was not from Marx. They stated that the citation was inadvertently printed and that they had already withdrawn the citation. However, nothing was reported in Sangrami Sangbad admitting that the mistake was due to hastiness. But, at the same time, they insisted that there was nothing wrong with the content of the quote and gave some more arguments in its favour.
?There is no point in extending the debate in this context of the source of the quote as it was accepted that this quote is not from Marx. But, the article in Sandhikshan was not written just to point out merely this particular mistake of Sangrami Sangbad. It was a secondary part of the article. One of the main points of this article was that the content of that quotation is not correct, more precisely it is against Marxism-Leninism. We wanted to discuss why that was wrong. Moreover, some important issues about reformism were raised in that article. Since the relevance of the main points raised in that article has not diminished in the slightest, we have decided to modify the original discussion in that article and publish it in the current edition of the Sandhikshan. It is a revised version of the previous article. The old article remains unchanged on Sandhikshan's website. Anyone can take a look at it if needed. Let's get into the main discussion with this introduction.
Is reform a stepping stone to revolution?
?In the beginning of the quotation which was mentioned as Marx's quotation in Sangrami Sangbad, it was said: "Communism is fundamentally revolutionary: its followers value reform as a stepping stone to revolution". Please note this remark carefully. The quotation says that reforms are the stepping stones to revolution. That is, revolution can be carried out or reached by taking one step of reform after another. "Reforms are the stepping stones to revolution"- could there be any other meaning of these words?
?However, if anyone harbours any doubt as to whether or not Sangrami Sangbad intended to mean exactly this, we will ask them to read a part of another article of Sangrami Sangbad. The article was titled "Bhangar Movement and Wonderful Marxism of 'Sandhikshan' magazine" and was published in the March-April, 2018 issue of Sangrami Sangbad. There, it was said on behalf of Red Star, "For the reformists, there is no transitional character of immediate demands. For them, one step means just one step. It is not an integral part of a long march. The same is applicable for 'Sandhikshan' magazine too, but they say that from an opposite position. They think in a similar fashion as the reformists and by venturing to oppose the reformists from such considerations, they have fallen directly into anarchism. Immediate demands and fundamental demands are diametrically opposite in their judgment. They endeavour to achieve fundamental demands without achieving immediate demands because they believe that fundamental demands must be forgotten in order to achieve immediate demands. They are of the belief that taking one step will result in deviating from the entire journey. And thus they prescribe to walk without taking the steps. Wonderful Marxism!" (Source: as stated earlier, emphasis ours)
Since this citation refers to the 'Sandhikshan' magazine, it will not be irrelevant to say a few words on the context of this citation. Many shall remember that Red Star had participated in a joint rally/procession with CPI(M) and other Left Front parties during the Bhangar movement. When they were criticized for this action, their response was that they had done so as a tactic to achieve demands. Sandhikshan magazine, in an article, (English version of that article "Bhangar Movement & The Tactics of Red Star", available at
http://www.foraproletarianparty.in/fapp/pack.ArticleView.do?link=15&id=244) criticised such outlook saying that for the communists, the realization of the demands of the reform movement cannot be considered as the sole or main goal for which they can resort to any strategy for the realization of the demands. Opposing Sandhikshan's reasoning vehemently, Red Star published an article in 'Sangrami Sambad,' the mouthpiece of their West Bengal State Committee. In that article they stated that reform is a step through which the working class advances towards revolution. We have given the relevant excerpt from the article above.
What has this article of 'Sangrami Sambad' tried to prove? They tried to establish that journey from immediate demands to fundamental ones is very long. It is not possible to attain fundamental demands without attaining immediate demands which is as good as walking without taking a single step, which is naturally impossible. Thus, here steps mean achievement of immediate demands. It means that the fundamental demands can be attained only by achieving immediate demands one after another. This is the meaning of walking step by step. Not only that, reiterating a quotation of Deng Xiaoping, they even stated that the real point is to catch a rat, whether the cat is red or black. In other words, the real aim is to realize the demand. The difference between them and Deng is that Deng said that it doesn't matter if the cat is red or black; it has to just catch the rat. And according to the Red Star, there is a difference between a red cat and a black cat - that is, the red cat catches the rat more efficiently, that is the success of being a red cat.
?So, what did it all stand for? According to the Red Star, the communists achieve the fundamental demands through the steps to achieve the immediate demands one after another. This is taking one step after another, walking in the direction of revolution. In other words, reform is the ladder of revolution. Revolution can be reached by climbing the ladder of reform.
We must note that they have not discussed anything about the relationship between struggles for reforms and revolutionary struggle in the referred quotation. They have discussed about achieving reforms and immediate demands and its relationship with revolution or the achievement of fundamental demands. Hence, the question arises whether revolution can be reached through attainment of reforms? Those who are even to some extent aware about the role of reformism in history and the consequent Marxist-Leninist analysis/criticism about it, definitely know that the theory of attaining revolution through reforms is an all-out reformist theory that has been refuted by Marxism-Leninism way back.
?We have very briefly mentioned the error of this statement of the Red Star in an article in an old issue of Sandhikshan (Reformism and the Communist Revolutionary Camp, Sandhikshan, October-December, 2018). The key points were mentioned there. But now let us explain a little further.
Is it possible to attain revolution through reforms?
What is reform? Reform means to change a society to an extent, to improve a little. To put it more clearly, it means to bring a change for the better, it is not to bring back the old, or walk backwards. In Lenin's words, "Every reform is a reform (and not a reactionary and not a conservative measure), only insofar as it constitutes a certain step, a "stage" for the better" ? How Not to Write Resolutions, Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 12, pg- 237)
For the working class, reform means some improvement in the conditions of the lives of the toiling people within the existing system, without abolishing the capitalist system, to create a more conducive environment for the development of class struggle. Reforms do not end bourgeois exploitation and rule. The only real change in the lives of the working people can be brought about through radical, revolutionary change in society. Now the question is, is it possible to bring about that radical, revolutionary change in the society by achieving one reform after another? So, first of all, it must be understood that for the working class, what is the goal of revolutionary change? The aim of the class struggle of the working class is to put an end to the old bourgeois society and build a new socialist society. Socialist society is a society completely different from the old bourgeois society. Socialist society is not only different from bourgeois society; it is different from all previous class-divided society. After the primitive communist society, the socialist society is the first society in human history which is classless. Therefore, the state that is needed in a class-divided society to suppress the exploited classes, the classless socialist no longer needs it. The system of production of all societies after primitive communist society is based on private ownership of the means of production. And socialist society is built on the social ownership of the means of production. If we look at it this way, in every case the socialist society is different from the old societies - there is no commodity, there is no trade; therefore there is no currency, and so on and so forth.
?Undoubtedly, that is why the transition from capitalist society to socialist society is the greatest and august revolutionary change in human history so far. This change means the complete disintegration of the old capitalist society and the formation of a whole new society. The question is, is it possible to bring about this revolutionary change through the continuous reform of capitalist society? More precisely, leave aside the question of attainment of revolutionary transformation; can this transformation from capitalist society to socialist society begin within the capitalist society? From the Marxist theory of development of society we know that it is not possible at all. Capitalism creates the preconditions for socialism ? it creates the working class who will create a socialist society; it creates the preconditions for social ownership by socializing the means of production, and even socializing the ownership of the means of production to a certain extent. But, that's all. This society can be formed, can begin to be formed only after the seizure of power by the working class - in a transitional society under the dictatorship of the working class, a society which is neither fully capitalist nor fully socialist. The journey towards building a society free from exploitation starts only after the seizure of power by the working class. In this matter, there is a difference from advancement to a capitalist society from feudalism. It is possible to reach capitalism from feudalism through reforms. It is a different question that this path is not desirable for the working class [Footnote - 1].
?It means that a reform, no matter how vast, can never bring about the emancipation of the working class. That can only be achieved through the seizure of state power by the working class. That is why, in capitalist society, the class struggle of the working class has only one goal - to seize state power. The revolution aspired by the working class, the socialist revolution, does not only mean the seizure of state power. Socialist revolution means the formation of a socialist society by abolishing the capitalist society. The seizure of state power marks the beginning of a long period of socialist revolution under the dictatorship of the working class, culminating in the formation of a classless society. For that reason, the task of the Communist Party is to prepare the working class to seize state power in a capitalist society.
?For that reason, if one says that reform is the stepping stone to revolution, he is claiming that it is possible to reach socialism through reforms, or at least the working class can seize state power through the struggle for reform. Needless to explain that as the struggle for reform improves the living conditions of the working class and the toiling masses within the capitalist system, it cannot bring about any change in the capitalist system, the ruling structure of this capitalist system. Strictly speaking, that is not even the goal of the struggle for reform. On the other hand, the aim of the revolutionary class struggle of the working class in the capitalist system is the seizure of the state power by the working class, after which a revolutionary change in society can take place. Whether the struggle for reform or reform helps the revolutionary struggle, and if so, how does it help, that question is different; the point is that it is not possible to bring about revolutionary change in society through the struggle for reform. Thinking in this way is reformism.
?However, we can conclude by reiterating that reform is never a stepping stone to revolution, that no matter how far one goes up the ladder of reform, revolution cannot be reached, or revolution cannot be carried out. Fundamental demands cannot be realized by walking with toddling steps to achieve immediate demands. To claim that fundamental demands can be achieved by achieving immediate demands means that it is possible to abolish wage slavery once and for all by raising wages. To say this would mean that one day real democracy can be reached by expanding democracy through movements for democracy. The working class can seize state power through trade union movements and political movements within bourgeois political boundaries (for example, through the formation of governments in a parliamentary way). The goal of the struggle for reform is to partially improve the living conditions of the workers keeping the system intact. On the other hand, the goal of the revolutionary struggle is to seize state power. Hence, how the struggle for reform, no matter how large the struggle, can make revolutionary change possible? Reformists or idiots, who are unable to take any lessons from history, dream or indulges others to dream like this.
How Marxists view the struggle for reform?
?It may so happen that the meaning we are deducing from the statement that reform is the stepping stone towards revolution is not correct. The statement that reform is the stepping stone towards revolution means that the revolutionary struggle is built or strengthened through reform. We will judge this too. But, before that, let's discuss why the working class struggles for reform.
?Lenin said, "The reformists try to divide and deceive the workers, to divert them from the class struggle by petty concessions. But the workers, having seen through the falsity of reformism, utilise reforms to develop and broaden their class struggle." (Marxism and Reformism, Lenin Collected Works, Volume 19, Page 372, emphasis ours)
?In another article, he said, "Therefore, revolutionary social democracy, while by no means renouncing the use of reforms for the purpose of developing the revolutionary class struggle ("we accept payments on account", said Frederick Engels), will under no circumstances make half-way bourgeois-reformist slogans "their own." . (How not to write resolutions, Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 12, Page 237, emphasis ours)
?Here too, the point is clear. Revolutionary social-democracy or communists use reforms to develop revolutionary class struggle. Incidentally, the quotation of Engels which Lenin used here, the same statement of Engels was used by the Red Star to show how important it was to achieve the demands for reform - they did not take into consideration the development of the revolutionary class struggle. Why should they? They think that revolution can be achieved only by achieving reforms one by one, that is why it is important for them to know how many reforms have been achieved - whether the rat was caught or not is the real issue. Here we can learn from Lenin how to understand the spirit of the writings of great teachers.
?However, Lenin later clarified the goal of the struggle for reform in another article. In a 1910 essay entitled Differences in the European Labour Movement, Lenin stated, "The revisionists regard as phrase-mongering all arguments about "leaps" and about the working-class movement being antagonistic in principle to the whole of the old society. They regard reforms as a partial realisation of socialism. The anarcho-syndicalists reject "petty work", especially the utilisation of the parliamentary platform. In practice, the latter tactics amount to waiting for "great days" along with an inability to muster the forces which create great events. Both of them hinder the thing that is most important and most urgent, namely, to unite the workers in big, powerful and properly functioning organisations, capable of functioning well under all circumstances, permeated with the spirit of the class struggle, clearly realising their aims and trained in the true Marxist world outlook." (Differences in the European Labour Movement, Lenin Collected Works, Volume 16, Page 349)
?It is necessary to pay attention to the last part of the last quotation, because it contains the main purpose of the struggle for reform for the Marxists. What is said in the quotation? Revisionists regard reforms as a partial realisation of socialism. Anarchists reject the struggle for reform (or the reform itself) as a petty work. Both are wrong. So what is important to Marxists? It is 'to unite the workers in big, powerful and properly functioning organisations'. Not only that, the organisation should be 'trained in the true Marxist world outlook'; it should have clear realisation of its aims. That organisation should be 'permeated with the spirit of the class struggle'. In a word, the workers must be united in a party organized for the purpose of revolution based on the class politics of the working class.
?How does the struggle for reform help in this endeavour? First, the struggle for reform helps the working class to unite and get organized. Through the struggle for reform, the workers become aware of the class character of the state and government. Through the struggle for reform, they prepare for the forthcoming big fight. In a word, the struggle for reform helps to make the workers class-conscious, to unite and organize them as a class.
?Does this mean that achievement of reforms is not their goal? Of course, they strive for reform in order to achieve reform. However, the aim of the communists in achieving reform is to use that reform for the development of class struggle or to propagate class struggle through reform. Another statement of Lenin can be seen. We have already seen that Lenin said in his article entitled Marxism and Reformism, "?..workers,?.. utilise reforms to develop and broaden their class struggle." (Marxism and Reformism, Lenin Collected Works, Volume 19, Page 372) This is the difference between communists and reformists regarding the struggle for reform. Reformists see the struggle for reform within the narrow boundary of how much reform has been achieved - they confine the struggle of the working class within reform. They do not take into consideration whether the struggle for reform is helping to develop the revolutionary class struggle of the working class. To the conscious working class, on the other hand, the criterion for judging the struggle for reform is whether it contributes to the advancement of the revolutionary class struggle. The CPI(M-L) Red Star can say (or, they are saying so) that in this sense they have called reform the stepping stone of revolution. They did not say that revolution would happen through reform; they wanted to say that reform helps the struggle for revolution. If so, then they have to say that the real goal of the struggle for reform is not to achieve the demands, but to make the workers class-conscious, to organize them into a class party. But on the contrary they said, the achievement of demands is the main objective in the struggle for reforms and they not only protested vehemently to our objection, but also called us anarchists.
?Let's move on. It is true that mass workers or working people join the struggle for reform in order to achieve the demands of the struggle. But, if their thoughts are confined to the achievement of that demand, could it be the task of leaders of the working class? The task of the real revolutionary leadership is to uplift the backward people through struggle and to advance them towards class consciousness. As a concrete example, the proletariat must demand the repeal of the anti-people law. The proletariat will oppose any attack on democracy. At the same time, it will make the working people aware of the fact that the working people can never achieve real democracy within the boundaries of bourgeois democracy. The proletariat will raise demands to stop inflation and will also try to stop inflation. But at the same time the revolutionaries will make the working people aware that the problem of inflation will never be solved unless the exploitation of domestic and foreign capitalists and large landowners, including imperialist capital, is abolished. Not only will they campaign it, but they will also make specific demands so that the working people are made conscious of the need for fundamental change and its nature in a tangible way. Tactics will be adopted in the field of struggle which will develop the strength of class struggle and will help to make the working people aware, ready and organized for the cause of class struggle. Its tactics will not be determined by how much demand will be realized, it will be determined by what tactics is necessary for the development of class struggle.
?But, Red Star says - no, the real work is to achieve reform. Why? The working class will one day make a fundamental change by achieving reforms one by one. This thinking is actually reformist thinking.
The dual character of reform
?There is no question about the fact that the working class uses reform to advance the revolutionary struggle. This is the a-b-c-d of Marxism on the question of the struggle for reform. But at the same time Marxism does not end in this a-b-c-d. The struggle for reform or reform itself can help to advance the class struggle of the working class, as well as to lead it astray. In a word, the character of reform is dual.
?The words are not ours, they are Lenin's words. In the context of reform, Lenin once said,
"?? every reform in capitalist society has a double character. A reform is a concession made by the ruling classes in order to stem, weaken or conceal the revolutionary struggle, in order to split the forces and energy of the revolutionary classes, to befog their consciousness, etc. " (How not to write resolutions, Lenin Collected Works, Volume 12, Page 237, Italics in Lenin's original writings, emphasis ours)
?This statement is very important. Reforms need not be viewed in a positive light. Reform does not always work for the revolutionary struggle. Reform can also take the working class away from the revolutionary struggle. And that is not a question of a particular reform; every reform has this dual character. Why is it so? Regarding class struggle, the ruling class takes two paths as required. One is to suppress the struggle of the working class through repression and the second is to divide the working class with the bait of reform and misleading their struggle. The ruling class makes reforms "to obstruct the revolutionary struggle, to divide the strength and vigor of the revolutionary classes, to confuse their consciousness." For this reason, reform not only brings improvement to the working class; it also creates the delusion amongst them towards remaining bound within the system. Reform diverts the working class from the path of class struggle, from the path of revolutionary struggle. Thus, it is not at all correct to say that mere achievement of any reform will lead the working class to the path of revolutionary struggle.
?Let's take an example. In Russia, the Duma or parliament was a reformist measure. They carried out these reforms to stem the upsurge of the revolutionary struggle of 1905, to remove a section of the people from the revolutionary struggle. Its power was very limited compared not only to the developed capitalist countries, but even to our parliament. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks used the Duma. But, they were never bound by the illusion of it. That is why they were able to use this right gained through reforms for the purpose of successful revolution of 1917. And the reformist parties of our country, instead of using the parliament for the development of the revolutionary struggle, have kept the working class trapped in the illusion of the bourgeois parliamentary system and diverted them from the path of revolution. As a result, if it is not clear what the real goal of the struggle for reform is, for what purpose, and how to use it, the reform will be used to divert the working class from the path of revolution instead of working for the development of the revolutionary struggle. Without understanding this dual character of reform, without understanding the conspiracy of the ruling bourgeoisie behind reform, it will not be clear what line the proletariat should take regarding reform. Then, like the Red Star, we will think that one day this world will be liberated through reform and only reform.
?We are no longer standing in the nineteenth century or even the twentieth century, we are in the twenty-first century. Behind us is the very precious, invaluable experience of the socialist movement, the class struggle of the international working class for more than one and a half hundred years, during which period the socialist movement had reached great heights and then also suffered defeat which gave rise to the present scattered condition of the working class. In our country, especially in West Bengal, we have also seen the rise and fall of reformist-revisionist parties like the CPI (M). What all those experiences are showing us? What experience have we had of the movement on the demands for reform? Has the achievement of reform always strengthened the revolutionary class struggle? We have seen many trade union struggles of the workers; we have seen its victory. The workers have been able to achieve their demands. But has the achievement of demands always led the working class to the path of revolutionary struggle? Didn't the achievement of demands often keep the workers more and more within the boundary of reforms and economic struggles? The history of the CPI (M) is not just the history of their tenure in government, when they gradually became agents of the big bourgeoisie and resorted to all sorts of means to destroy any movement of workers, be it by the power of the government or by the power of the party. When they were not in the government, they led many militant labour movements and in many cases were able to achieve their demands. Did the achievement of those demands lead the workers towards revolution, or did the CPI (M) draw the workers into the politics of government formation within parliamentary boundaries? The second is true. The lesson of all this is that achieving reforms, realizing the demands does not automatically lead the workers to the path of revolution. Because, the struggle for reform and the revolutionary struggle of the working class for the purpose of changing the society, for the purpose of seizing power, are two different struggles. Undoubtedly, there is a connection between these two struggles. The struggle for reform can help the revolutionary class struggle, but the struggle for reform does not in by itself lead to revolution.
?In fact, when the revolutionaries revolted against this reformist line of the CPI (M) in the late sixties with the same wrong or one-sided lesson, they went on the path of boycott of mass movement, mass struggle, trade union struggle etc. Their path was anarchic, adventurous; because, they only saw the aspect that the struggle for reform increases the fascination towards reform. They didn't see the other side of the struggle for reform. That is to say, they denied that the revolutionary struggle could not proceed without the struggle for reform. They denied that revolutionaries could use the struggle for reform to build a revolutionary struggle. They refused to understand that the working class and the working people prepare themselves for the revolutionary struggle through the struggle for the economic demands and for reform. Revolutionary struggle cannot develop at one stroke.
?Today, a reverse trend can be seen among the organizations known as the Communist Revolutionary Groups. They are demanding reforms, participating in the spontaneous struggle of the people demanding reforms, and even trying to build-up a 'struggle' to demand reforms from above. But, are they aware of the question of whether the way they view the demand for reform or the struggle for reform is working for the development of the revolutionary struggle, or going against it?
Reform is the by-product of the revolutionary struggle
?As Lenin repeatedly spoke of the necessity of the struggle for reform, he also at times spoke in such a way as to make it seem as if he were opposed to a separate struggle for reform. Lenin, in several instances had commented, "Reforms are the by-product of revolutionary struggle". In 1907, in an article, he asserts ? "Social democracy regards reforms, and makes use of them, as a by-product of the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat." (How not to write resolutions, 1907, Lenin Collected Works, Volume 12, page 237). Again, in 1911, in an article on agricultural reform, he reiterated, "Reform is a by-product of the revolutionary struggle." Lenin later said the same thing in different contexts. That is why it would not be right to think of it as something isolated or something said at a particular juncture only. More importantly, Lenin not only referred to it as his own, but also as a highly accepted fact of Marxism.
?What is meant by the statement that reform is a by-product of the revolutionary struggle? Lenin also explained that at different times. The upsurge of revolutionary struggle forces the ruling class to make some reforms. The ruling class seeks to divert a section of the people from the path of revolution by luring them with the bait of reform, and thereby try to weaken the revolutionary struggle by creating divisions among the people participating in the struggle. Even if the revolutionary struggle fails, there remains the reform that the working class can use for the development of its struggle.
?We have seen countless experiences in history. The same experience was seen during the Tsar's regime and during the first revolution of 1905. Tsar tried to quell the revolutionary struggle of 1905 by convening the Russian parliament, Duma, formed on the basis of extremely limited power. The revolution of 1905 failed, the working class had to go through a period of reaction of several years after that. But, the Duma reform stayed on. The Bolsheviks, under the leadership of Lenin, boycotted the Duma for as long as the revolutionary wave lasted. However, when it became clear that the revolutionary struggle had been defeated for the time being, they used this Duma reform to raise awareness and organize a large section of the working class. Lenin called the reforms thus achieved the by-product of the revolutionary struggle.
?Lenin also explained why it was desirable for the working class to see reform as a by-product of the revolutionary struggle, rather than fighting for reform. There are two reasons behind this. Firstly, otherwise as a result of this, the consciousness of the working class, and the toiling people, is confined within the boundaries of reform, they are diverted from the revolutionary struggle, and their consciousness is defiled, which the vanguard of the working class can never do. Second, even if the struggle of the revolution fails, the reforms that are achieved through it are much greater and much more sustainable than the reforms that could have been achieved by fighting for the demands of the reforms. It is because the struggle of the working class and the toiling masses becomes much stronger and more intense then. Even if that struggle fails, it is capable of giving birth to a bigger reform.
?But here arises a question. If the revolutionaries regard the reforms only as a by-product of the revolutionary movement, then it may mean that they should not fight for the reforms at any time. On the contrary, we have seen that Lenin strongly advocated the struggle for reform. We also know that the struggle of the working class cannot advance without the struggle for reform. So, aren't these two things contradictory, that is, on the one hand, Marxists are in favour of the struggle for reform and Marxists regard reform as a by-product of the revolutionary movement on the other hand? So did Lenin make contradictory statements?
?Lenin actually made distinction between the demands for reform in two categories. There is one type of demand for reforms which cannot be achieved without revolutionary struggle. The other type of demand is that can be achieved within the present ruling framework. And he opposed the demand for reforms that could not be achieved without revolutionary struggle. According to Lenin, the reforms that can be achieved in this system can be fought for.
?Something may strike odd here. The demand for reform means that the demand can be achieved in the present capitalist system, without abolishing the capitalist regime. So, first of all, can there be any demand for such reforms which cannot be achieved without a revolutionary struggle to change the present regime? And if so, what kind of demand would it be? It would be a demand for reform, but at the same time it cannot be achieved without revolutionary struggle, is this not self-contradictory?
?Let us take an example. It is not only possible to abolish feudal land relations within the framework of the capitalist system, it is also necessary for the development of capitalism. As a result, the abolition of feudal land relations through land reform is not theoretically impossible. However, the bourgeoisie of the imperialist age compromises with feudalism and does not want radical land reform. They are forced to undertake land reform only under the pressure of revolutionary struggle.
In other words, radical land reform is a reform which is not possible by keeping the present ruling structure of our country intact. Even the achievement of this reform, as wide and pervasive as possible, within this system becomes possible only under the pressure of the revolutionary struggle. On the other hand the reforms from above are very meagre.
?We have had this experience before in our country. We will see in the state of West Bengal the ruling bourgeoisie took up land reform programmes on a larger scale only after the upsurge of struggle of the workers and peasants with a possibility of revolution was seen in the late sixties. The law for land reform programme which was taken up by the Left Front government in the name of Operation Barga was already enacted during the Congress government regime in the early seventies, under the pressure of the mass movement of the sixties, the movement which was waged with the aim of uprooting the landlords and jotedars (a section of landowners apart from zamindars owning large tracts of lands) by seizing their lands without heeding the laws of the time. Reformists proclaim that the Left Front government carried out large-scale land reforms through Operation Barga. However, the fact is that the amount of land seized during the movement of the sixties was more than the amount of land given to the bargadars (share-croppers) by the government through Operation Barga. Further the peasants could not retain the land given to them by the Left Front government in most of the cases. As a result, it proves that these reforms can be achieved in the real sense only through revolutionary struggle. Even if the revolutionary struggle fails, the reforms that take place as a by-product are far more extensive and powerful than the reforms that usually are implemented from above.
?So, what kind of demand of reform can workers fight for? Lenin once distinguished between these two types of reforms, saying: "The workers are not against the struggle for reforms ? they fought for the Insurance Bill. Through their deputies they used every opportunity in the Third Duma to bring about at least slight improvements. But the point is that the Third Duma and the Insurance Bill are not fiction, but political facts, while "Freedom of Association" under the June Third Monarchy of Romanov is an empty promise from rotten liberals." (Can the Slogan "Freedom of Association" Serve as a Basis for the Working-Class Movement Today? Lenin Collected Works, Volume 18, Page 242, Italics in Lenin's original writings) This means that raising the demands for reform which is not possible without the revolutionary struggle in the true sense of the word overwhelms the vision of the working class, misleads them, and deceives them. Because of that, revolutionaries cannot make such demands. However, the working class can fight for the reforms that can be achieved in this system because that struggle helps them to prepare for the revolutionary struggle. In fact, Lenin also mentioned in one place that this distinction may vary from country to country and time to time. "We made a distinction between Britain, where the workers' demand for the reform of trade union legislation (laws on freedom of association) is of very serious and real importance because the general basis of political liberty exists in that country, and Russia, where such a demand is not serious, is an empty liberal phrase, but where such reforms as insurance are seriously practicable under the existing political system." (Notes of a Publicist, Lenin Collected Works, September 13, 1913, Volume 19, Page 385-86, Italics in Lenin's original writings)
Conclusion: Some thoughts on what to learn from today
It is said that Marxism is based on the concrete analysis of the concrete situation. The general discussion we've had above about reformism (actually, this general discussion we've had before) won't make sense if it does not help us determine our present tasks or provide direction. The situation has changed a lot since Lenin discussed this. That period was a stage of advancement, a stage of development of the class struggle of the working class. At that time the class struggle of the working class was moving towards a peak. We are currently in the midst of an unprecedented situation of defeat of the working class movement, where the struggle of the working class is almost non-existent, the absence of a party of the working class has been there for almost three or four decades. Just as the change of circumstances does not mean that any decision of that time has to be accepted as applicable now, again, to say on the other hand that Lenin's teaching has become obsolete because the situation has changed would mean to claim that Marxism-Leninism itself has become obsolete. We have to decide how or in what sense the lessons we discussed earlier apply today. This writing is already quite lengthy. So some of the points are presented here in brief ? as some thoughts.
First point: We have seen that the struggle for reform is waged by the communists in order to organize the mass of working people and to draw them into the revolutionary struggle. If the goal of the struggle for reform or the achieved reform to draw the working and toiling people in the revolutionary struggle, to create favourable conditions for class struggle is absent, then that reform or struggle will be confined within the boundaries of reformism. But, first of all, in order to bring the toiling masses in the direction of class struggle through the struggle for reform, they have to be struggle in a real sense. In other words, it is not just a propaganda movement, but a real struggle, in which a large number of workers and toiling people are participating. Second, the communists will be able to attract the masses of the backward working class only when the forces of the advanced class-conscious workers are organized into a party formed on the basis of ongoing course of class struggle of the working class. We are currently passing through a long period of defeat. There is no party. In this situation, even if the communists want, can they pull the mass of toiling people in a revolutionary direction through the struggle for reform? Naturally, that is not possible.
So, in the present concrete situation, for what purpose can the communists use the struggle for reform? In a word, what is the objective trend within the present-day struggles in favour of class struggle, or its development, which the communists will now grasp or develop? In the absence of the Communist Party, it is not possible to influence and draw the mass of toiling people towards revolution. It is possible to do only one thing at this time, which could work in favour of the development of class struggle. That is, to take the class politics of the working class among the workers involved in all these struggles and to unite the advanced workers emerging from this struggle into a force by making them conscious and organized on the basis of class politics. If this is not accomplished and only the success of the struggle for reform is regarded as most important, then we will help to nurture the trend of reformism whether we like it or not.
Second point: Not all classes regard or can regard reform in the same way. Reforms in a capitalist society, whatever that may be, cannot eliminate the exploitation of capital. Rather, more and more toiling people come under the exploitation of capital. But, as a result of reform, there are sections of the petty bourgeoisie other than the proletariat, the semi-proletariat, such as a section of the middle peasants or small traders, etc., who can prosper, a section of whom can become free from the old forms of exploitation, that is pre-capitalist exploitation and oppression. That is why the fascination with reform influences them more because of their class position. The communists cannot judge the struggle for reform of the working class and the struggle for reform of other classes where there is a dominance of petty bourgeoisie people or ideas, with the same approach.
In the absence of a working class party, in the absence of a stream of the working class movement, can the communists at all influence the struggle of the other sections of the people towards the goal of class struggle, the goal of revolution? It is amply clear that this is not possible. Even if it is not possible in the same way as the workers, it must be endeavoured to organize the advanced section of the working people involved in the struggle for specific reforms under class politics by attracting them towards working class politics elucidating the need for revolutionary change in society concretely in connection with this struggle besides staying with them in their struggle. The task is difficult, but if it is not done, the danger of being confined within the boundaries of reform will increase.
Third point: There is no doubt that the communists will be involved in the struggle for reform or will try to build a struggle. But, even when there is no possibility of building up a struggle, will the Communists continue to campaign for demands of reform, especially for all that can be achieved within this system? Why does this question arise? When the resentment of the workers and the toiling masses is expressed through a movement, the communists in the leadership of this movement must play a role in formulating the demands that have arisen from the protests in order to organize their protests. But if that is not the case, then raising the demand for reform by the communists, detached from the workers' movement, means to restrict the vision of the working people confined within a few reforms. Secondly, what will be the demand? If the demand for reform is made with consideration of the consciousness of the backward and inactive sections of the people, then the communists will gradually degrade themselves to the demand of petty reform. To do so would not only restrict the consciousness of the working and toiling masses confined within reform, but the communists would gradually erode their own revolutionary consciousness. Thirdly, due to the inaction of the workers and toiling people, their sense of rights is very low. In this situation, on the one hand, the ruling class is intensifying its exploitative attacks on them; on the other hand, it is carrying out various reforms and relief programmes to keep them shackled within the system. They are also attracted to such programmes as the sense of rights of the working people are low. The communists cannot demand for proper implementation of such relief programmes. Because, to do so means to keep the consciousness of the working people trapped in this meagre reform or relief, to fail to bring to note the need for them to stand up against exploitation. To do so would be to help the conspiracy of the ruling class to be successful.
?The communists must demand reforms that cannot be achieved unless there is a revolutionary struggle. And because of that they will not curtail the demands. Let us take, for example, demand for eradication of all kinds of non- peasant ownership of land in agriculture. It is a demand for reform, but it cannot be achieved without revolutionary struggle. The communists will certainly make this demand, but they will do it in conjunction with the necessity of the revolutionary struggle. If they limit themselves only within the demand of distribution of 'khas' (vested) land with the consideration that it is achievable within this system and it will be comparatively more tangible to the consciousness of the peasants in the present situation where struggles are absent and the peasants are not agitating for the eradication of all non- peasant ownership - then it will be tantamount to being restricted within the boundary of reforms and to confine the consciousness of the peasants within a few petty reforms. Will that befit the communists? Certainly not. However, it should be made clear here that in reality, if there is a spontaneous struggle of the poor peasants on demand for such minor reforms, the communists must stay with them and organize the poor peasants from the experience of struggle, prepare them for greater struggle elucidating the need of it. But, if the revolutionaries raise a demand, then why should they demand for mere distribution of khas land only? In that case, should not they raise the revolutionary demand? Even when campaigning on demands for reform, should their propaganda be limited to the demand for reform only, or the communists must repeatedly raise the question that the abolition of this ruling system is the only way to complete liberation.
?The danger of reformism is very strong today. As a result of the inactivity of the working class and the toiling masses, the absence of movement and the defeat of the revolutionary struggle, the influence of reforms on them is a major obstacle to the development of the revolutionary struggle. That is why the flag of revolutionary struggle cannot be raised without freeing the working class from the influence of reformism. That is why the question of reformism needs to be seriously considered in the communist circles. The purpose of the present writing is to assist in the process of that judgment.
Footnotes:
It may be mentioned in this context that if the transition from the old feudal society to the capitalist society is taken into account, then history has shown that it can be on the path of revolution as well as on the path of reform. Just as the bourgeoisie in the past overthrew feudalism through democratic revolution and created capitalist society, so too after one stage they have abandoned the path of revolution and eradicated feudalism on the path of reform.
The transition from feudal society to capitalist society on the path of reform is possible for two reasons. First, capitalist relations of production are born in the womb of feudal society. Although the old feudal society, feudal relations of production or its remnants pose as impediments in many ways for the development of capitalism, the relations of capitalist production are not only born, they can grow in feudal society. The second reason is that in the process of this transition from feudal society to capitalist society in many cases no fundamental change fundamental change of the old society is required. For example, capitalist society is a class-divided society like feudal society, so there is no question of class abolition. Even in this society private ownership of the means of production is retained, only its form changes. Even in capitalist society there is no question of the abolition of the state, only the bourgeois state replaces the old feudal state. In fact, the ruling bourgeoisie of the capitalist country further refined the state of the old feudal era and transformed it into a bourgeois state. For all these reasons, even if it takes a long time, it is possible to go to the capitalist society through the reform of the old feudal society.
This process of reform is not only a long, slow one, but a very arduous one for the working-peasant masses. Moreover, although it is possible to form a capitalist society on the path of reform, the remnants of the old society remain to a large extent. For that reason, even if the old feudal society can be transformed into a capitalist society on the path of reform, the working class will never take that path.
The working class will want to complete the unfinished task of the bourgeoisie, that is, the unfinished democratic revolution, not on the path of reform, but on the path of revolution. When the working class completes the unfinished bourgeois revolution, it is no longer the old democratic revolution. The working class carries out the democratic revolution as part of the socialist revolution, that is, the democratic revolution led by the working class or the people's democratic revolution not only carries out the task of the democratic revolution, it also initiates the task of the socialist revolution.
Comments:
No Comments for View