“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
Attempts to reform capitalism span as far back as the inception of political parties themselves, 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 class. 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.
In Marx’s time, reformism asserted itself as one of two principle competing theories with Marxism on the left, with both anarchism and reformism opposed to Marx’s theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The former, represented by Mikhail Bakunin, argued for the abolition of the bourgeois state but without establishing a proletarian state in its place, failing to recognise that in a world system dominated by capitalism, the proletariat needed a state to implement its policy and begin the transition to communism. The latter, represented by the German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle, argued for taking over the bourgeois state and using it to implement socialism through piecemeal reforms, failing to recognise that the capitalist state was a product of capitalism and its economic and political logic, and therefore could not be used by the class it was designed to oppress.
In order to achieve his aims, Lassalle was even willing to collaborate with Prime Minister Bismarck in exchange for worker concessions, while Marx recognised this as class collaboration and betrayal. Matters came to a head when Lassalle launched the German General Workers’ Association in May 1863 with a social-democratic programme of universal suffrage and producer co-operatives funded by the bourgeois state. Marx declared that the peaceful transition to socialism, as proposed by Lassalle, was not possible, and refused to take over the organisation after Lassalle’s death due to irreconcilable disagreements with its politics.
In 1869, the Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany was then founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel. Although the party originally supported Marx’s revolutionary line, higher worker living standards as a result of the growing strength of the workers’ movement led to a change. The General Workers’ Association and the Social Democratic Workers’ Party held a meeting in Gotha in 1875 where they merged into the Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany, later becoming the Social Democratic Party (SDP). Here, they adopted the “Gotha Programme” which became a model for social-democratic parties throughout Europe―a programme of socialist economic policies, but with a political strategy that was reformist and liberal:
“The socialist labor party of Germany endeavors by every lawful means to bring about a free state and a socialistic society, in effect the destruction of the iron law of wages by doing away with the system of wage labor, to abolish exploitation of every kind, and to extinguish all social and political inequality.”
Eduard Bernstein was the leading theorist behind Germany’s social-democratic movement, and had several criticisms of Marxism. For example, Bernstein believed that the polarisation of wealth between the capitalist class at one end and the working class at the other was untrue, and opposed international working-class solidarity in favour of support for German colonialism to improve the living standards of workers domestically. Bernstein also believed that, since the working class represented the majority of the population, universal suffrage opened the door for socialism to be achieved gradually and peacefully through parliamentary struggle alone.
Bernstein’s ideas therefore encapsulated several key tenets of social democrats (reformist socialists) historically: class collaboration, social imperialism, and bourgeois legalism and pacifism. This was a winning formula for creating a successful “working-class” political party that was tolerated by the bourgeoisie as a controlled “left” opposition, and could therefore win votes under the bourgeois parliamentary system, but only by becoming part of the capitalist system itself. Thanks to this betrayal of the workers, the social democrats under Karl Kautsky successfully became the largest socialist party in Europe.
Greater working-class organisation and militancy led to higher wages and expanded political rights, which in turn strengthened reformism by creating the illusion that an endless string of reforms out of capitalism itself may be possible. The ruling class recognised this as an opportunity, and Bismarck introduced a series of social reforms and welfare measures to pacify the class struggle domestically while intensifying colonialism abroad to ensure that capitalist profits continued to rise. At the same time, repressive measures were introduced to crush working-class militants and revolutionaries in the form of the Anti-Socialist Laws which, while permitting parliamentary activity, outlawed socialist organisations and trade unions on the ground in a carrot-and-stick approach that proved very effective against Germany’s workers and which the SDP collaborated with.
According to the German communist Rosa Luxemburg, reformism therefore operates paradoxically. It professes to change society by enacting laws and improving conditions, but in reality, it tends to fortify capitalist structures. 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, and 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 communists in Germany. The orchestrators of these actions were none other than the reformist SDP, 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 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 reaction.
As mentioned earlier, 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 and the formation of a new international on a communist basis. 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 the ruling classes would willingly adopt their ideas when they won the political argument, 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. In Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme, he critically addressed this argument, asserting that only a communist, proletarian revolution could bring about a socialist transition.
Likewise, Engels attacked the SDP parliamentarians in a letter to August Bebel in September 1879, highlighting the fact that the reformist socialists were dominated by the paternalistic middle classes acting against the majority of the workers:
“For almost 40 years we have emphasised that the class struggle is the immediate motive force of history and, in particular, that the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat is the great lever of modern social revolution; hence we cannot possibly co-operate with men who seek to eliminate that class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. Hence we cannot co-operate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes. If the new party organ is to adopt a policy that corresponds to the opinions of these gentlemen, if it is bourgeois and not proletarian, then all we could do — much though we might regret it — would be publicly to declare ourselves opposed to it and abandon the solidarity with which we have hitherto represented the German Party abroad.”
Finally, Rosa Luxemburg critiqued Eduard Bernstein’s reformist ideas 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, explaining 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 Long Transition towards Socialism and the End of Capitalism, T. Lauesen
Reform or Revolution?, R. Luxemburg
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, V. Lenin
Critique of the Gotha Programme, K. Marx
Discussion Questions:
- What differences are there between communist 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 social democrats unwittingly pave the way for fascism? Does this mean they should be denounced as fascists themselves?
- What are the economic laws of capitalism which prevent a piecemeal transformation into a socialist society?
