Recently, a fellow socialist blogger, Red Dave, wrote an article titled 'The Merits of Revolution' which basically outlined his problems with the idea of a popular uprising, or a revolution. I thought this was a good topic. One of the major disagreements I often have with other socialists is exactly this; what will better accomplish our end goal? Reformism or Revolution? So I decided to outline my beliefs on Democratic Socialism.
First, the positives. Obviously one of the benefits of socialism through the ballot box is that there are no casualties. Another is that it is more respected as it is constitutional and 'democratic'. These are what attract a lot of socialists to democratic socialism, and they are good reasons for that. Another reason is revolutionary socialism's haunting past where socialism basically became state capitalism with purges and other events which would scar socialism for decades to come.
Now the negatives and my arguement for revolution. First, I personally believe socialism can come in no other way than by starting over on a blank page. This is because socialism calls for such radical change that capitalist constitutions will not allow those changes to proceed 'constitutionally'. Why? Because the 20th century taught capitalist countries to make their constitutions safeguards against socialism, often times banning socialist parties or throwing communists in prison.
Thus a revolution which is by the workers and masses of society is needed. Second, even if we were too accomplish such change legally, capitalism would always be there and present. All of our reforms could be undone when a new congress or parliament is voted in. Third, socialism cannot be 'voted in' under capitalist so called "democracy". These "democracies" are crafted to exclude small parties that have no or little money. Campaigning is all about money. Everything on the campaign trail costs. A socialist party, which is often small and based in the working class, does not have the same type of funds as the Republican Party or Democrat Party which get massive donations from celebs and businessmen. Thus since they can't campaign, they can't get their voice heard and usually will not even end up on the ballot.
In sum, Democratic Socialism has it's perks but it also has it's problems. Revolutionary Socialism has it's perks and problems too but in terms of reaching pure socialism, revolutionary socialism is more effective.
I'm looking forward to responses from Democratic Socialists on this topic. I want my points to be rebutted mainly because I think this is an important topic that all socialists should deal with and learn from each other about.
First, the positives. Obviously one of the benefits of socialism through the ballot box is that there are no casualties. Another is that it is more respected as it is constitutional and 'democratic'. These are what attract a lot of socialists to democratic socialism, and they are good reasons for that. Another reason is revolutionary socialism's haunting past where socialism basically became state capitalism with purges and other events which would scar socialism for decades to come.
Now the negatives and my arguement for revolution. First, I personally believe socialism can come in no other way than by starting over on a blank page. This is because socialism calls for such radical change that capitalist constitutions will not allow those changes to proceed 'constitutionally'. Why? Because the 20th century taught capitalist countries to make their constitutions safeguards against socialism, often times banning socialist parties or throwing communists in prison.
Thus a revolution which is by the workers and masses of society is needed. Second, even if we were too accomplish such change legally, capitalism would always be there and present. All of our reforms could be undone when a new congress or parliament is voted in. Third, socialism cannot be 'voted in' under capitalist so called "democracy". These "democracies" are crafted to exclude small parties that have no or little money. Campaigning is all about money. Everything on the campaign trail costs. A socialist party, which is often small and based in the working class, does not have the same type of funds as the Republican Party or Democrat Party which get massive donations from celebs and businessmen. Thus since they can't campaign, they can't get their voice heard and usually will not even end up on the ballot. In sum, Democratic Socialism has it's perks but it also has it's problems. Revolutionary Socialism has it's perks and problems too but in terms of reaching pure socialism, revolutionary socialism is more effective.
I'm looking forward to responses from Democratic Socialists on this topic. I want my points to be rebutted mainly because I think this is an important topic that all socialists should deal with and learn from each other about.
It's great to have some inter-blog rebuttals going on, Henry. Although I think you may have misubnderstood my position; I advocate a mix of both, sort of in a Chavista manner (revolutionary changes come from a socialist President).
Total reformism is impossible, but I also think a complete revolution has rarely yeilded good results. A mix of both is necessary.
I intend to promote this post on Mantis and respond to it at some point. Great post.
Left Henry,
Great idea! Let's talk about reform, social democrats, etc.
Michelle Bachelet (President of Chile), the first female president in this hemisphere, ran her successful campaign on the grounds of a social democrat. She promised to reform Chilean society for the benefit of the poor and disenfranchised. At the same time, she promised that she would continue neoliberal policies such as "free" trade with the U.S.
Paulo Freire said: "In order for one to express their charity, one must perpetuate injustice as well." This seems to be the fundamentally contradictive approach of a social democrat. Benefits for a small class of autocrats in the form of advantageous trade policies, while at the same time giving out band-aids for the resulting malladies of neoliberalism.
For a social democrat like Bachelet, the honeymoon ended abruptly. Please refer to the Sept.-Oct. edition of the International Socialist Review ("Student Rebellion in Chile"). Or check out my post on the reaction of Chileans to Bachelet's "social democracy."
Following another vein, one must be careful not to place too much--if any--hope in the electoral process of a capitalist society as a means for the emergence of a socialist society. While in Venezuela in August on a fact-finding delegation, I was able to speak with many sectors of that society, including opposition groups. Among the opposition to Chavez are socialists, communists and anarchists. The anarchists were quick to point out that the left in America were being seduced by Chavez and his rhetoric. They accused Chavez of "populist trickery". They explained how he was still very much beholden to a capitalist system and that he was in fact negotiating "neoliberal" trade deals at the same time he was criticizing them. In fact, a quick Google search will yield a plethora of articles discussing Chavez's deals with Chevron, Exxon-Mobile, and Conoco-Phillips.
Is Chavez throwing money the way of the poor? Yes, absolutely. Are the poor benefitting? Yes indeed! Does this deserve praise? I think so. But the perpetuation of an oppressive system seems destined to rear its ugly head someday.
Of all of the organizations we met with in Venezuela, the anarchist group Alterforo, presented the most cogent argument for starting over instead of reform. It was very convincing to hear them talk about Chavez's initial support of worker-recovered factories (spontaneous anarchistic efforts), which turned into a deceptive trick that resulted in state appropriation. Chavez used well-organized workers, destined to directly control the means of production, in order to eliminate a private owner. The result is that these factories that were being managed, controlled and run directly by its workers were incorporated into a less effecient, arbitrary state mechanism. A direction not dissimilar to other infamous state capitalist societies.
Until and unless I observe a more convincing "socialist" society than the one I had imagined Venezuela's to be, I will tend to believe a genuine socialist society will not emerge through reform or elections.
Dave,
I see your point but isn't that usually what reformism is? Maybe I'm wrong but in anycase I do see your point about how revolution has yielded problems in the past, which is one of the reasons I used to be a democratic socialist.
I look forward to your response. Should be interesting
Che Bob,
It's funny you bring up Blanchet as a few days ago I was talking about her with a Pinochetist.
That's another point which I was going to bring up in this point but forgot about.
Many socialist parties become social democrats because they're party changes to try to adapt to a different democgraphic.
Blanchet came from Allende (predecessor of Pinochet)'s party which was a Democratic Socialist Party that was having much success at it's goal. I've said before that Allende was my favorite liberal politician of all time lol.
Another example would be the African National Congress, which was the socialist party which had a base of marxists and socialists and was backed by the USSR, who led the revolution against the apartheid. They've basically become a center-capitalist party which is pretty sad.
(Sorry for my English)Hello,friends, I am peruvian.
You are right in the Bolivian case, for example (Revolution is inevitable). In Bolivia president Evo Morales is trying to implement a socialist agenda for his country, but he can not do so because of the capitalist parliament. Bolivian bourgeoisie want to keep the old political system.
I hope you can understand my words.
In the orthodox conception of Marxism/Leninism, a revolution would necessarily have to be world wide or counter-revolutionary forces tax your ability to develop.Of course, due to the uneven range of capitalist development world wide it seems unreasonable to think every society can be at the same revolutionary stage at the same time so you are left with a variable,hodgepoge of strategies, social democracy being one.Chavez's strategy is to build parallel revolutionary institutions alongside the capitalist ones and hope for a gradual re-alignement.Neither Bachelet or Chavez want a US bullet put through their brain, which is the usual treatment for Latin American leftists.I think their pragmatic approach deserves a wait and see response from the left.