Sacred Headwaters #58: Reform or Revolution?
An age-old debate in socialist circles continues to be relevant both on its own and as a useful frame for understanding climate change and ecological crisis.
Sacred Headwaters is a (roughly) bi-weekly newsletter that aims to guide a co-learning process about the existential issues and planetary limitations facing humanity, the power structures blocking change, and how we can overcome them and build a future in which all of humanity can thrive. If you’re just joining, consider checking out the first issue for some context and head over to our table of contents to browse the whole library. The newsletters are not strictly sequential, but they do build on concepts over time. Subscribe below if you haven’t already, and please share with friends, family, and colleagues who may be interested:
Table of Contents
Sacred Headwaters has a table of contents intended to allow readers to “catch up” more effectively, facilitate using Sacred Headwaters as a reference, and give a better picture of what the newsletter is about for those who are just joining.
Issue #58: Reform or Revolution?
New social housing is good, but will it lead to the decommodification of housing and the end of capitalist speculation? Emissions reductions achieved through fuel switching are essential, but will they lead to a transformed, ecologically sound society? Labor laws protect workers, but will they end capitalist exploitation?
These are questions that social democrats and revolutionary socialists have argued over for more than a century and they remain important today both in their original context of anti-capitalist struggle and in the newer (related) context of climate and ecological crisis. We know that the world needs transformative change to restore a stable climate, though exactly what that looks like and how we get there remains a site of political struggle. Can systems change be won through incremental, often technocratic shifts, or do we need revolutionary changes (or even a revolution, whatever that means today)? And given that a revolution won’t simply happen overnight, what differences do the two approaches have in the short-term, if any?
Many of the movements we’ve read about over the last few months have wrestled with these questions internally, showcasing some of the challenges of balancing short-term goals with long-term revolutionary ambition. The questions for today’s social movements are the same as they were when this debate started: when are incremental reforms part of a revolutionary agenda that we should invest time and energy into and when do they serve to legitimate the status quo and undermine revolutionary change? How can we distinguish the two types of actions?
Examples of the importance of this question are everywhere and in every sector. Some of the readings in this issue will explore the more traditional ways this question has arisen in socialist organizing. But it also applies to things like environmental regulation, investment in ecological restoration, carbon removal, and social movement tactics like divestment.
The readings in this issue look at some of the historical debate on the question, including Rosa Luxemburg’s 1900 piece titled “Reform or Revolution,” in an effort to understand the ways reformist approaches can actually limit the revolutionary potential of movements. Luxemburg’s essay is filled with prescient warnings about both the development of capitalism and the way reformist agendas can be coopted to reinforce it.
We’ll also look at André Gorz’s concept of the “non-reformist reform,” a frame for social movements to use to attempt to understand what distinguishes short-term tactics and goals with revolutionary potential from those without. It’s tremendously valuable for looking at many of the more radical reform agendas put forth today, particularly by the so-called “green left,” and attempting to discern whether they can be useful stepping stones on the path to a better world or whether they will be leveraged to perpetuate exploitation and ecological destruction.
Finally, we’ll read a paper that attempts to apply these concepts directly to a question faced by the climate movement today: what is the revolutionary potential of the divestment movement? It’s both an informative read and an illustrative example of the value that Gorz’s framework has as a tool for guiding radical movement priorities and action.
Reform or Revolution? (30 minutes)
Rosa Luxemburg, 1900. The full pamphlet is fairly long; it’s a good read, but if you’re limited for time, read the Introduction, Chapter 3: The Realisation of Socialism through Social Reforms, and Chapter 5: The Consequences of Social Reformism and General Nature of Reformism.
Luxemburg wrote this pamphlet in response to “revisionist” currents within the Social Democratic Party of Germany led predominantly by Eduard Bernstein. Bernstein argued that certain aspects of Marxist doctrine were wrong and that socialism could be achieved through incremental transformation of the capitalist status quo by pursuing unionism and electoral engagement. Luxemburg’s response remains enlightening today within the context of struggles against capitalism, but it also provides a remarkably powerful frame for viewing action on climate change. The core of Luxemburg’s argument is that while both wings of the socialist movement — reformists and revolutionaries — pursue the same practical strategies, by positioning those strategies as the goal themselves (rather than as means to an end), reformists render the real goal unattainable. She argues that the incremental gains won through unionism and electoralism aren’t just valuable for the material improvements they bring, but for the effect they have on those who helped fight to gain them: the “awareness, the consciousness, of the proletariat.” When framed the way the reformist movement frames them, they lose that latter power, rendering them ineffectual.
It’s dense reading and there’s much more to it than I’m summarizing here. As you read it, think about some of the struggles radical social movements have faced — particularly surrounding electoral engagement — that we’ve read about in recent newsletters (i.e. this one on Cooperation Jackson), and also about how these same arguments might apply to climate-related reforms.
André Gorz’s Non-Reformist Reforms Show How We Can Transform the World Today (15 minutes)
Mark Engler and Paul Engler, Jacobin, 2021
In the 1960s, the socialist thinker André Gorz developed the idea of the “non-reformist reform” as a framework for social movements to use to analyze whether short-term tactics simply served to entrench capitalism or contributed to the longer term goal of overcoming it. Mark and Paul Engler explain the context in which Gorz developed the concept, what he meant by it, and how it can be used to inform social movement tactics today. Perhaps the most important point is that there isn’t a clear litmus test: context and framing are everything. Just like Luxemburg argued in the above essay, reformists and revolutionaries often pursue the same short-term tactics, but by framing those tactics as the end goal themselves, reformists lose out on the more transformative benefits that stand to be gained. By the same token, radicals might pursue reforms in alliance with reformist social democrats, but for those reforms to truly be “non-reformist,” they must retain control of the narrative and continually emphasize the ways that reforms contribute to longer term transformative goals.
Kali Akuno’s Jackson-Kush Plan (issue #56) does exactly that when it talks about electoralism, emphasizing that through winning political power, the movement would aim to implement democratic reforms that themselves would lay the groundwork for revolutionary change through consciousness-building and education. These policies are non-reformist precisely because of that goal; the minute the connection to the more radical goal is lost, they lose their non-reformist character and become tools of legitimation.
The last issue explored the bizarre convergence of interests that is calling for reducing standard working hours, including groups like the World Economic Forum; it offers an excellent example: reducing working hours will be good for many people regardless of what political project it is pursued as part of. But it isn’t inherently revolutionary; in fact, it is clear that at least certain elements of the ruling class perceive it as a tool to maintain the status quo. Whether it is reformist or non-reformist depends on how it ends up being won.
Fossil Fuel Divestment, Non-reformist Reforms, and Anti-capitalist Strategy (15 minutes)
Emilia Belliveau, James K. Rowe, and Jessica Dempsey, 2021
This paper looks at the university divestment movement and attempts to determine whether it is a reformist or non-reformist reform. It’s an interesting question: as some socialist authors have pointed out, on face, divestment seems far from revolutionary. It’s even been characterized as a “green capitalist effort.” A closer look makes it clear that the divestment campaign has a number of more subtle, non-market-based mechanisms of action beyond the actual divestment itself, but it’s still worth asking: can this movement be leveraged for transformative change, or is it simply the slightly more radical edge of a reformist, liberal climate politics? Belliveau, Rowe, and Dempsey do an excellent job explaining Gorz’s concept and then applying it in an effort to understand whether divestment can serve as a step towards revolutionary change or not, and thus, whether anti-capitalist climate advocates (such as themselves) should support it. Their conclusion is that yes: divestment seems to hold revolutionary potential through the “transformation of political consciousness.” As Luxemburg wrote about union organizing and political projects in her time, the authors write that “divestment is a kind of ‘entry project’ that provides space for self-transformation:” it politically activates and radicalizes the people who work on it.
That said, the authors caution that “the risk of co-toptation…is ever present,” and that the mainstreaming of divestment demands will be a sign that its moment as a revolutionary tool has come to an end.
It’s worth pulling out the authors’ summary of what makes a “non-reformist reform” here as they are quite a bit clearer about it than the Englers. A non-reformist reform:
should disrupt the capitalist status quo in ways that can work to the benefit of socialist forces
should prefigure the new system by building popular power in the process of fighting for reform
cannot be the end goal in itself but instead needs to be part of a larger transformative plan.
Like what you’re reading here?
Sign up now so you don’t miss the next issue and consider forwarding this email to a friend or colleague.