Oh, those reformists

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Article: Europe Against the Left

Opening the article is an attack on revolutionists, with the straw man that revolutionists condemn reformists for being "conniving politicians seeking to ******** over their leftist and working class base at first opportunity" or some similar nonsense. This may be true for some who claim to be revolutionary, but the idea itself is absurd. It isn't that opportunists are looking to sell out their supporters at first opportunity, it is just that by rejecting revolution, they are forced to take responsibility for the capitalist economy, and that means eventually they will have to betray the working class, all the while thinking they are making the best out of a bad situation, honestly and sincerely no doubt! The following passage toward the middle of the article expresses this clearly:

Quote:

"Thus the post-1980 regime of social-democratic decay has its origins in the interaction between two specific historical developments: first, subjectively, a creeping loss of belief – shared across the political spectrum and grounded in the traumas of the 1970s — that full employment could be sustained; then, objectively, the gradual “locking in” of this belief into the structures of European monetary and governance institutions, systems from which dissent and divergence became increasingly costly or even impossible. The inexorable logic laid out by Ton Notermans swiftly set in: once full employment via macroeconomic means was ruled out – by acts of political choice, though under the pressure of events – social democrats hoping to “manage the system” were all but forced to become microeconomic neoliberals. Meanwhile, microeconomic incomes policies that once aimed to stabilize domestic inflation in a Golden Age world of abundant demand degenerated into modern “social pacts” aiming, in beggar-thy-neighbor fashion, to pilfer scarce demand from foreign competitors by undercutting their wage and price levels. Capitalists and their political allies, naturally, were quick to capitalize on the Left’s defensive stance to push the counterrevolution even further."

Because they rejected revolution, they were forced into macroeconomic reform, good, meaningful reforms to be sure, but that could not last, because capitalism is a world system, and not isolated to one country. When judgement day came and their old economic doctrines were dashed against the rocks, they were forced to become 'neoliberals with human faces'.  

[Aerliniel]

Le Pere Duchesne

Because they rejected revolution, they were forced into macroeconomic reform, good, meaningful reforms to be sure, but that could not last, because capitalism is a world system, and not isolated to one country. When judgement day came and their old economic doctrines were dashed against the rocks, they were forced to become 'neoliberals with human faces'.

I agree with you there, that is one of the reasons why reformism has ended the way it has as of now and on countless other occasions historically. It is because of the rejection of revolution and the acceptance of capitalism as something that can be improved via reforms that all the reforms passed by reformists will end up disappearing (Spain is a great example of that right now), as is shown by that passage that you quoted there. However I would say that this very acceptance of reform rather than revolution implies indirectly the acceptance to 'sell out' the working classes, at least indirectly. The agreements which a reformist party must reach and the limitations that its reforms has due to the acceptance of capitalism implies that reformist politicians will in fact sell out and betray the working classes at least in an indirect and unconscious manner.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Aerlinniel C Robleda

Le Pere Duchesne

Because they rejected revolution, they were forced into macroeconomic reform, good, meaningful reforms to be sure, but that could not last, because capitalism is a world system, and not isolated to one country. When judgement day came and their old economic doctrines were dashed against the rocks, they were forced to become 'neoliberals with human faces'.

I agree with you there, that is one of the reasons why reformism has ended the way it has as of now and on countless other occasions historically. It is because of the rejection of revolution and the acceptance of capitalism as something that can be improved via reforms that all the reforms passed by reformists will end up disappearing (Spain is a great example of that right now), as is shown by that passage that you quoted there. However I would say that this very acceptance of reform rather than revolution implies indirectly the acceptance to 'sell out' the working classes, at least indirectly. The agreements which a reformist party must reach and the limitations that its reforms has due to the acceptance of capitalism implies that reformist politicians will in fact sell out and betray the working classes at least in an indirect and unconscious manner.

You're certainly correct there, that by rejecting revolution, they are placing themselves in a position where they will be forced to ******** over the workers, but my post was more seeking to show how even if they do consider themselves to be fighting for reforms for the oppressed and all sorts of good things, that the reality is, they end up ******** them over.  

[Aerliniel]

Le Pere Duchesne

Aerlinniel C Robleda

Le Pere Duchesne

Because they rejected revolution, they were forced into macroeconomic reform, good, meaningful reforms to be sure, but that could not last, because capitalism is a world system, and not isolated to one country. When judgement day came and their old economic doctrines were dashed against the rocks, they were forced to become 'neoliberals with human faces'.

I agree with you there, that is one of the reasons why reformism has ended the way it has as of now and on countless other occasions historically. It is because of the rejection of revolution and the acceptance of capitalism as something that can be improved via reforms that all the reforms passed by reformists will end up disappearing (Spain is a great example of that right now), as is shown by that passage that you quoted there. However I would say that this very acceptance of reform rather than revolution implies indirectly the acceptance to 'sell out' the working classes, at least indirectly. The agreements which a reformist party must reach and the limitations that its reforms has due to the acceptance of capitalism implies that reformist politicians will in fact sell out and betray the working classes at least in an indirect and unconscious manner.

You're certainly correct there, that by rejecting revolution, they are placing themselves in a position where they will be forced to ******** over the workers, but my post was more seeking to show how even if they do consider themselves to be fighting for reforms for the oppressed and all sorts of good things, that the reality is, they end up ******** them over.

I understood that, although wouldn't that be something that would unavoidably be a result of rejecting revolution?  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Aerlinniel C Robleda

Le Pere Duchesne

Aerlinniel C Robleda

Le Pere Duchesne

Because they rejected revolution, they were forced into macroeconomic reform, good, meaningful reforms to be sure, but that could not last, because capitalism is a world system, and not isolated to one country. When judgement day came and their old economic doctrines were dashed against the rocks, they were forced to become 'neoliberals with human faces'.

I agree with you there, that is one of the reasons why reformism has ended the way it has as of now and on countless other occasions historically. It is because of the rejection of revolution and the acceptance of capitalism as something that can be improved via reforms that all the reforms passed by reformists will end up disappearing (Spain is a great example of that right now), as is shown by that passage that you quoted there. However I would say that this very acceptance of reform rather than revolution implies indirectly the acceptance to 'sell out' the working classes, at least indirectly. The agreements which a reformist party must reach and the limitations that its reforms has due to the acceptance of capitalism implies that reformist politicians will in fact sell out and betray the working classes at least in an indirect and unconscious manner.

You're certainly correct there, that by rejecting revolution, they are placing themselves in a position where they will be forced to ******** over the workers, but my post was more seeking to show how even if they do consider themselves to be fighting for reforms for the oppressed and all sorts of good things, that the reality is, they end up ******** them over.

I understood that, although wouldn't that be something that would unavoidably be a result of rejecting revolution?

Which was the entire point of the post :/