[PEN-L:28323] Re: Re: reformism

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 22/07/02 10:13 -0700, Michael Perelman wrote:
> I am not arguing against reforms, but "reformism" is a difficult path.
> There is a strong groundswell for reforming corporate finance, just as
> there was for campaign finance reform.  The final reforms are usually very
> unsatisfactory, often designed to quell the immediate call for reform and
> little else, unless there is an organized force demanding reforms.

Indeed. Very tricky. But if we just call for socialism, we may miss the
opportunities
a) to win the battle of democracy when capitalism off balance
b) fail to drive home its weakness in effective agitational rather than
general propagandist terms
c) fail to see the opportunities in the contradictions between different
sections of capital,  to press structural changes which can be built on later.

One aspect of the DoMT article which surpised me but which I think is valid
is the distinction David Coates drew between the ongoing struggle for
immediate demands within the capitalist system and the stategy of
reformists, which, like the strategy of revolutionists actually wants a
fundamental change in the system - they just differ about how it is going
to come about.

I agree with Juriaan that we need a wider debate about what we really want
and the obstacles on the way, than can just be summed up in the polemical
positions that Lenin used at the time he was writing.

Chris



> The disinformation media complicates any hope for meaningful reforms.
>
> The Repug capture of congress shows how easily even mild reforms can be
> swept away.
>
> In closing, the term "reform" leaves a nasty aftertaste now that it has
> been co-opted to mean making everything "market-friendly."
>  --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx