SOCIAL REFORMISM AND ITS POLITICAL REFLECTION -- SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

SPARK #10

By George McKnight In the area of working class ideological and philosophical understanding there are historically two basic trends. These are the ideology of social revolutionism and that of social reformism. These represent two complementary yet contradictory and opposing approaches to the problems of working class advance in the struggle with the capitalist class. Each of them offer a proposed approach to working class advance. The purpose of this article is an attempt to analyze these two trends and to show, on the basis of historical experience and social science how each of them work out in practice.

In his classic work Socialism: Utopian and Scientific Engels explained the origins of both concepts. Utopian socialism, was based upon the supposed "goodwill" of the capitalists who, once they would see the fairness and logic of socialism would, supposedly, readily agree to it. It was a dream which was based upon an illusion. It failed to work despite several attempts to establish socialist communities. It was this failure which prompted Marx and Engels to work out the philosophy, of dialectical and historical materialism and the ideology and principles of Scientific Socialism, They proved theoretically that socialism would only come about by conscious and organized struggle led by the working class against the power of capitalism, the class struggle. The end product of this struggle would be socialist society, based upon scientific reality, and the replacement of private ownership with public ownership of the means of production. The aim of production to be the public interest rather than private profit and thus the elimination of exploitation.

The fact that these scientific principles were proven theoretically and that utopian socialism was an illusion, did not end the argument. The ideas of utopian socialism were taken up by all sorts of "socialist" philosophers and theorists and over time evolved into the philosophy and theories of social reformism, which became the ideological basis of social democracy, with little if any reference to socialism but instead a theory of reformism which sees a kinder capitalism, more willing to accept "Welfare State" ideas and policies within the capitalist economic, political and state system.

Social Reformism
Social reformism is represented in the field of politics by the social democratic parties, presently in Canada the New Democratic Party. Currently members of this party also hold nearly all of the leadership positions in the trade union movement outside Quebec, men and women who adhere to the same reformist ideas. Social democrats contend that there is nothing fundamental in the conflict between the working class and the capitalists, that it is all a matter of unfairness on the part of one side or the other. They hold that a social democratic government when it holds political power can arbitrate and regulate between these workers and capitalists and ensure "fairness" through reasonable reforms and regulations. These can be enacted by a parliamentary majority and thus obviate the necessity of class struggle against the capitalist class. Thus reforms are seen as an end in themselves, leaving the power structure of the capitalist state intact, and being able, through a majority in parliament to transform the state to serve the people and the capitalists, serving them both "fairly", and for the common good of all. The power structure of monopoly capitalism is ignored.

Reformism sees no role for the people other than to build and finance an election machine to elect reformist politicians at election time, and to pay dues to their unions to keep the leadership in their positions. Reformists believe that the people should leave everything to the reformists in parliament or in union leadership positions to solve all the problems confronting working people. They make flowery speeches in parliament hoping to have legislation adopted to solve the people's problems. Reformists see no need for democratic struggles outside parliament, and frown on demonstrations, strikes and all extra parliamentary activity, contending that such activity is a waste of time, and even a detriment, making it more difficult for them to negotiate "fair settlements" and achieve legislative reforms in parliament.

Those who believe in reformist ideology see class struggle and social revolution as destructive of the "social order" and reject the concept of social contradictions which objectively underlie all social development. They fail to understand that in the process of social advance, the contradictions which give rise to class struggles can and must be resolved by the class struggle in order to overcome the power of the dominant capitalist class and replace it with the power of the masses of the people led by the working class.

Revolutionary Socialists
Those who believe in the necessity and inevitability of social revolution are represented in Canada by the Communist Party of Canada and by those who support revolutionary class struggle policies in line with social science. Although small in number and in support, they nevertheless represent the future. They recognize that, as long as the exploiting class holds political, economic and state power and uses it to increase its profits and its wealth and power to exploit the people, the need for struggle against the power of capitalism grows ever more apparent. Communists also fight for reforms, but do not see them as an end in themselves, but as part of the revolutionary process.

Revolutionaries understand that the process of social development is a reflection of objective social laws and forces operating within human society. The most fundamental of these laws is that of contradiction, and social contradictions can only be resolved through struggle by the exploited and oppressed against their exploiters and oppressors. Failure to acknowledge or recognize these laws and social forces does not limit their effect, but simply leads one to false conclusions and wasted effort.

These social laws operate independently of human consciousness. They can be understood and utilized by society but cannot be wiped out or eliminated. Communists understand that, in the same way the capitalist class overthrew feudalism by revolutionary struggle to establish its system of capitalism in its day, the working class must overthrow capitalism by revolutionary struggle to establish working class socialist society in our day. The class struggle for reforms, social improvements, better wages and working conditions, democratic and political rights, shorter hours etc. are not ends in themselves, but part of the process of building up working class power and consciousness, for the great struggle for socialism as the solution to capitalist exploitation is becoming ever more necessary to overcome the domination by multinational corporations using their power to exploit the people and add to their great wealth.

This revolutionary struggle need not take the form of a violent revolution. It can be a peaceful revolution, provided the alignment of forces is sufficiently weighed in favour of the people.

However there must be that capture of political power to begin that fundamental transformation of society. It is this concept which the social reformists reject. They oppose eliminating the power of the capitalist state and replacing it with a people's state, which would serve the working people rather than the exploiting capitalist class. Social reformists of all stripes, including social democrats, reject this fundamental necessity, and actually fight for the preservation of capitalism, so that they can hopefully occupy the leading positions and reform the system to make it "fair" to all, exploiters and exploited alike. They claim to be able to run capitalism better than the capitalists themselves.

How Social Democrats Behave While in Positions of Power
With some honourable exceptions, experience throughout the history of social democracy, whether in political office or in trade union leadership positions, is instructive as to what we can expect of them. In political office they become almost indistinguishable from liberals or other openly capitalist parties. In trade union positions they quickly adapt the unions to the needs of the employers while remaining critical of the abuses of capitalism, which they attribute to the way the system is run, not the system itself.

Bob Rae's "Social Contract" in Ontario was a typical example. When faced with the responsibility of government, social democracy has to chose between the interests of the working people and those of the capitalist power structure expressed in the state. The Rae government, having little mass support behind it and, being opposed to people's involvement in struggle, was compelled to find a way to attempt a cover-over of the conflict between the workers and the capitalist power structure. It chose the "Social Contract" as a means of adapting the interests of the workers to those of the capitalists who own and control the economy and limiting the workers' demands to "acceptable" levels.

In trying to put this policy into effect, Rae so angered the trade union membership that they voted him out of office and elected the Conservatives, only to find themselves sinking still deeper into the capitalist web of anti-working-class anti-people policies. In nearly every case where social democrats have been elected to office, they have isolated themselves from the people by imposing capitalist policies, (capitalism with a "human face") which has resulted in a return of capitalist politicians to power stronger than ever. The people's political forces, being disorganized and disoriented, then allowed the capitalist politicians to attack the people's rights and interests with relative impunity. Such is the oft-repeated logic of social democratic politics.

Weaknesses of Reformist Trade Union Leaders
In the trade union field, social democrats try every means possible to avoid open struggle with the employers. They become trade union bureaucrats negotiating committees carry on their negotiations with the employers in secret, telling the membership as little as possible. "Leave everything to us" is the watchword of their efforts to settle grievances or get a new labour contract. Their approach to negotiations is to find a settlement which is the minimum the workers will accept, rather than the maximum they can squeeze out of the employers through determined struggle by an organized and determined membership.

They find the easiest way out and allow the understanding and activity of the membership to decline to the point where only a very small group of activists attend union meetings or have any idea what is going on. They favour schemes like trilateral discussions among the employers, the unions and the government to work out common approaches to problems, approaches in which the workers inevitably lose ground.

In the meantime they establish social democratic "machines" composed of a very small fraction of the leading activists who control the machinery of the union, ensuring re-election of the social democratic leaders in all elections so as to guarantee their return to office and perpetuate their leadership careers. In addition to this, having no commitment to the long-range interests of the working class and its struggle for socialism, many of these "leaders" go over to the employers, becoming personnel directors or other company officials, and are able to use the knowledge and experience they gained as trade union leaders against the workers they presumed to lead while occupying their trade union positions.

Weaknesses of Revolutionary Trade Union Leaders
On the other hand, among revolutionary trade union leaders, history proves that there is a tendency to go overboard and attempt to go too far along the path to a socialist revolution. In capitalist society, trade unions, regardless of who leads them are there to protect and advance the workers interests within the system, not primarily to carry on the struggle for fundamental social change, which is the objective of revolutionary politics.

Experience has shown that when revolutionary leadership tries to use its positions to effect fundamental social change beyond the understanding and support of the membership, they soon get into trouble. Trade unions are fundamentally economic organizations, organized to fight for wages, hours and working conditions within the range of understanding of the membership. Trade union consciousness is fundamentally different from full class consciousness and it takes a relatively long period of education coupled with experience to advance from the one to the other.

When revolutionary trade union leaders fail to understand this fundamental fact and try to impose their class understanding upon a membership which is not yet ready for it, they soon isolate themselves from the membership and lose their positions of leadership. The inevitable result is that the leadership is taken over by reformists and the level even of trade union consciousness declines rather than advances. The struggle is set back and it may take several generations to recover the lost ground as far as the class understanding of the workers involved is concerned.