Revolutionary reform

In many movements there is a real distinction to be made between those who want to solve a problem at its root and those who want to ameliorate its worst effects. For some people, for example, the way to deal with hunger is to work at soup kitchens. For others, setting up a soup kitchen is a fairly insignificant reform. They want to eliminate the root causes of poverty so that people won’t need to go to soup kitchens. Many people use the terms revolutionary and reformist to mark these two ways of approaching social change.

When we talk about transformative goals like overthrowing capitalism, however, ideas of revolution and reform can be frozen into an unproductive “either/or” dichotomy. On the one side is a total revolution happening all at once at a moment of crisis in capitalism. On the other is a reformism that can seem like nothing more than a series of efforts to soften some of capitalism’s worst excesses, but which will not ultimately make any real difference. Among anti-capitalists, reformism is usually represented by the position of the early twentieth century German Social Democrat Eduard Bernstein. His view was that capitalism can be encouraged to simply evolve into socialism without any power struggle. Those supporting revolution, on the other hand, tend to gravitate toward the ideas of Russian revolutionary leader, Vladimir Lenin. He called for revolutions to overthrow capitalism by taking over national governments, one nation at a time.

The concept of revolutionary reform helps guide our actions to find that sweet spot where actions can have maximum impact.

Trotsky and Luxemburg had an intermediate position. Leon Trotsky, who was a leader of the Russian revolution and became a dissident under the Stalinist dictatorship, and Rosa Luxemburg, who fought against Bernstein within the German Social Democratic Party, both opposed reformism and argued for revolutionary overthrow. In their move toward overthrow, they didn’t just focus on building a party that could overthrow a state via armed struggle, as Lenin did. Instead, they urged organizers to build toward a revolution by organizing around “transitional demands.” Those were demands that would be perceived by the public as reasonable, but which, because they couldn’t be met under the system of capitalism, would throw the capitalist system into a crisis, leading to revolution.

Some thinkers, such as the early-twentieth-century Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta, the late-twentieth-century French socialist André Gorz, and the late-twentieth-century American radicals James and Grace Lee Boggs, worked from the similar position that some kinds of reforms can lead to deep transformation. There are some transformations, in other words, that, as we achieve them, we change the fabric of society, and bit by bit they can lead to deep systemic transformation, and begin to overcome capitalism or any other system of domination. The concept of revolutionary reform helps guide our actions to find that sweet spot where actions can have maximum impact.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 demanding an end to segregation on buses in the city, for example, didn’t just win its immediate demand. Rather, the success there led eventually to a US federal court ruling outlawing segregation nationally. In 2013 people who opposed rising bus fares began to organize in cities all around Brazil (see: STORY: Brazil’s Free Fare Movement) to demand free public transportation. Over time the movement grew and pulled in thousands of organizers, who won major concessions in terms of bus fare. In the process many people were politicized and saw the possibility of taking to the streets and using mass protest to transform society in other ways.

Another example: Getting universal health care in the United States would make people less dependent upon their job to survive. As people are freed from a dependence on wage labour they are more able to build a non-capitalist economy. Universal health care is thus a revolutionary reform that is an important part of getting past capitalism.

When you are engaged in a small action without a larger strategy, it is unlikely to lead to anything but mild reform and short-term relief. But if the action you take is directed at concrete, achievable steps while at the same time opening up at path toward a larger, more systemic transformation, then your work is revolutionary reform.