“There can be no unity, federal or other, with liberal-labour politicians, with disruptors of the working-class movement, with those who defy the will of the majority. There can and must be unity among all consistent Marxists, among all those who stand for the entire Marxist body and for the uncurtailed slogans, independently of the liquidators and apart from them.
Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism.” – V.I. Lenin, Unity
The history of reformism spans as far back as the inception of political parties, most notably during the French Revolution. The conventional, liberal narrative of the French Revolution suggests that the people of France revolted against their avaricious, omnipotent, and haughty king to establish control over their nation through elections and parliament. However, from a Marxist perspective, this event, as Marx termed it, was a “bourgeois revolution” wherein the ruling aristocratic class and inherited landowners were replaced by the emerging capitalist or business-owning class. These new urban merchants had amassed wealth from the burgeoning capitalism of the early 18th century.
Contrary to some expectations, these capitalists did not drastically alter the French political landscape. Instead, they simply replaced the aristocrats with themselves, notably during the brief period known as the “Reign of Terror,” where former royalists and revolutionary adversaries were executed. This phase was subsequently succeeded by the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, who eventually declared himself Emperor of France.
The reason for mentioning this lies in the observation that, despite these transformative events, the fact of exploitation of a majority by a minority remained essentially unchanged. The peasantry did not experience liberation, the proletariat was just beginning to emerge within the developing capitalist economy, and the control of the government rested in the hands of an elite few, only slightly larger than the previous aristocratic regime.
Arguably, one might even characterise Napoleon Bonaparte as a reformist, citing policies such as the Napoleonic Civil Code that instituted uniform legal systems across Europe and advanced rights for citizens. From a Marxist perspective, we recognize that these policies did not constitute reforms for the majority, particularly the working classes. They were more akin to bureaucratic reshuffling or organisational adjustments. Those who seek to reform and repair capitalism, whether from the left or from the right, whether or not they identify as socialist, and whatever class they claim to represent in doing so, in effect never leave the confines of bourgeois liberalism which seeks to end class conflict without challenging class rule and end capitalist crisis without challenging capitalism itself.
According to the German communist Rosa Luxemburg, reformism operates paradoxically. It professes to change society by enacting laws and improving conditions, but in reality, it tends to fortify capitalist structures. This reinforcement of capitalist rule involves granting minor and temporary concessions to a select few, creating the illusion that an endless string of reforms out of capitalism itself may be possible. Reformism also entertains delusions about the benevolence of the ruling class, fostering class collaboration and division among workers who, in turn, fight amongst themselves while the capitalists maintain distant control—an intricate form of modern gladiatorial games.
Luxemburg viewed reformism as neither gentle nor progressive. In her case, she became one of the many victims of reformist betrayal. While advocating for a better society for the many, she was tragically shot down by those who purported to want to establish positive change through reforms. In Luxemburg’s case, reformism facilitated the development of government-sponsored paramilitary groups, known as the Freikorps, which captured, tortured, and executed her and numerous other socialists in Germany. The orchestrators of these actions were none other than the reformist Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), self-described Marxists of the Second International, whose opposition to revolution paved the way for the rise of fascism and the Nazi party in Germany.
British communist Rajani Palme Dutt wrote extensively on the links between social democracy (reformist socialism) and fascism in his book, Fascism and the Social Revolution. In it, he explains how at times of capitalist crisis, social democrats will attempt to channel all working-class and progressive forces into only waging struggle through the ineffective channels sanctioned by the bourgeoisie: pacifist, legal, and electoral. Not only does this split the forces that could achieve a successful uprising if united, it also disgusts and demoralises the working class when reformist attempts at change inevitably fail and their supposed leadership are seen to be apologising for and collaborating with the liberal bourgeoisie, rather than taking up arms against them. Without communists engaging in the ideological struggle against social democracy and exposing the class collaboration and betrayal of social democrats, workers are therefore driven into political apathy or the hands of the far right.
There are also extensive links between reformist socialism and imperialism, with lost profits from improving the condition of workers domestically made up for through the intensification of exploitation abroad. Until the Second International, the communist movement (known then as the Social Democratic movement) included both revolutionary and reformist socialists. It was the betrayal of the reformists in supporting the imperialist First World War which led to the progressive split between the reformist social-democratic parties and the revolutionary communist parties. Anti-imperialism is a non-negotiable part of communist politics, and social democrats who propose to rely on imperialism to substitute reforms for workers at home must be exposed.
Reformism can be unequivocally likened to a utopian idea, reminiscent of the classical utopian socialists of the early 19th century. These thinkers believed in the natural evolution of societies towards better conditions for workers, anticipating that ruling classes would willingly adopt their ideas, leading to the relinquishment of control over the state and means of production. However, history has shown that this idealistic vision has never materialised and can never do so.
Marx, in his response to the SDP’s Gotha Program, critically addressed this argument, asserting that only a communist, proletarian revolution could bring about significant change. In a critique of the German social democrat Eduard Bernstein, Rosa Luxemburg expanded on this argument in her essay Social Reform or Revolution? In this fundamental text on the flaws of reformism as a strategy for social change, Luxemburg clarifies that neither trade unions (which operate under capitalist laws and can only ever slow the general decline of worker living standards, rather than reverse them permanently) nor parliamentary elections (which were established by the bourgeoisie and can only be used to take power with the consent of the ruling class) allow any scope for a gradual and peaceful transition to socialism. She also exposes the idea that reforms implemented by the bourgeois state, like “public ownership” (which is in reality bourgeois state ownership to secure the interests of the bourgeois class as a whole over individual capitalists) represent more or less socialism under capitalism, arguing that “in the best of labour protective laws, there is no more “socialism” than in a municipal ordinance regulating the cleaning of streets or the lighting of street lamps.”
This does not mean that communists should not engage in the struggle for reforms alongside workers in trade unions and other campaigns, because it is by fighting alongside communists in the struggle for reforms that workers learn revolutionary organising skills and develop a revolutionary socialist consciousness, learning that capitalism cannot be reformed through a purely economic struggle into a worker-friendly mode of production, and must instead be overthrown in its entirety in a political struggle against the capitalist state which defends it. In the words of Rosa Luxemburg: “The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to [socialism] the only means of engaging in the proletarian class war and working in the direction of the final goal—the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage labour. Between social reforms and revolution there exists for [socialism] an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim.”
Further Reading
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, V. Lenin
Reform or Revolution?, R. Luxemburg
Critique of the Gotha Programme, K. Marx
Discussion Questions
- What differences are there between Marxist demands and social democratic demands when it comes to elections and campaigning?
- What other differences are there between social democratic parties and communist parties, e.g., economics, political strategy, class composition, tactics, etc.
- Why do Marxists participate in parliamentary elections they cannot win? How does a revolutionary approach to elections differ from a social democratic strategy?
- How do communists expose social-democratic and reformist anti-communism in trade unions and other organisations?
- How do social democrats unwittingly pave the way for fascism? Does this mean they should be denounced as fascists themselves?
- Are all social democrats anti-communists?
- What are the economic laws of capitalism which prevent a piecemeal transformation into a socialist society?
