Reform or revolution is a great book. You definitely should read it.
Rosa’s criticism in the book is not against reform, it’s against reformism. Reformism is a strategy of gradually reaching socialism through reforms in the bourgeois political system. The problem of this strategy is its political naivety, because at any moment the bourgeoisie can turn the tables and use other tactics to quell the advance of the proletariat. This strategy has other ill effects on the proletariat like reducing the revolutionary impetus and stimulating economistic and opportunistic tendencies in the proletariat.
She argued that reforms in a bourgeois system are to be understood as stepping stones towards social revolution, tools to help organize the working class into revolutionaries by showing them what’s possible when their organized.
The thesis is the first paragraph of the introduction:
At first view the title of this work may be found surprising. Can the Social-Democracy be against reforms? Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. 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 the Social-Democracy 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 the Social Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim.
She however explicitly criticizes Bernstein and other opportunists for assuming that reforms are the be all end all of revolution. Opportunists at the time (and today) argued that a socialist soceity could be built by continuous reforms in the bourgeois political system until eventually you reform out ant vestige of capitalism.
Luxembourg points out why this is impossible and how we must use reforms to further the revolutionary struggle.
Basically, reform as tactics (tools), revolution as strategy (goal). Economic and Political Strikes is a short text that touches on this. This is why effective ML parties nowadays (like KKE) participate in the spontaneous struggles for reforms, while never losing sight of the revolution.
Applying this to Mamdani, his government could be a great moment to push for reforms from the left by organising, and intensify class conflict whenever his reforms get pushback from the ruling classes. That is, use the struggle for reforms (in housing, childcare, “Israel” relations, migration) as a tool to exercise the political power of the working class, which eventually might grow to be able to topple the regime.
So yeah, revolutionaries shouldn’t shun reforms, they just shouldn’t be reformists and treat them as the end all be all.
Edit: also, and this could be controversial here, but I believe communists should get ready to critically support Mamdani when necessary against reaction, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It’s a tough balancing act.
Applying this to Mamdani, his government could be a great moment to push for reforms from the left by organising, and intensify class conflict whenever his reforms get pushback from the ruling classes.
The key to this is supporting Mamdani’s more radical reforms (i.e. those that genuinely help the working class) while not supporting the Democratic party and its institutions. Support “Mamdani the Radical Reformer” and “Mamdani the Agitator”, not “Mamdani the Democrat”.
As communists we must maintain our own independent political organizations that are unapologetically led by the working class and for the working class, and which exist wholly outside of the bourgeois parties. Anything less is entryism and doomed to fail. First and foremost this should be seen as an opportunity for agitation and propaganda, for showing workers what they can demand and what they can achieve through organizing outside of bourgeois structures.
That subreddit is fulled with radlibs and socdems.
Why would you cite a book you haven’t read?
I thought that it was clear that I was trying to correct the misunderstanding about the title
S4A has an audiobook on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVZgtmGmyl4
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
No
Can you please explain why?
The main driver of the work is a criticism of the trend towards reform as the strategy for social change, reaffirming the notion that revolution is indeed the strategy, even if fights for reforms can be viable political maneuvers in certain scenarios.
In a time when the overwhelming trend is still that reform is the only option, western leftists deciding “reform is good” is the point of Reform or Revolution is incredibly on the nose.
A revolution is a total (and sudden) change to the system, reform is well … reworking the current system. you cannot reform when you also are just putting in a new system.
It would be like saying its fix your car AND buy a new one not fix your car or buy a new one…
