| Part of thepolitics series |
| Party politics |
|---|
 Politics portal |
Reformism is a political tendency advocating thereform of an existing system or institution—often apolitical orreligious establishment—as opposed to its abolition and replacement viarevolution.[1]
Within thesocialist movement, reformism holds that gradual change through existing institutions can eventually lead to fundamental changes in a society'spolitical andeconomic systems. Reformism as a political tendency and hypothesis of social change grew out of opposition torevolutionary socialism, which contends that revolutionary upheaval is a necessary precondition for the structural changes necessary to transform acapitalist system into a qualitatively differentsocialist system. Responding to a pejorative conception of reformism as non-transformational, philosopherAndré Gorz conceived ofnon-reformist reform in 1987 to prioritize human needs over capitalist needs.[2]
As a political doctrine,centre-left reformism is distinguished fromcentre-right reformism,[citation needed] which instead aims to safeguard and permeate thestatus quo by preventing fundamental structural changes thereof. Leftist reformism posits that an accumulation of reforms can eventually lead to the emergence of entirely different economic and political systems than those of present-daycapitalism andbureaucracy.[3]
Religious reformism has variously affected, for example,Judaism,[4][5]Christianity,[a] andIslam,[6] sometimes occasioningheresies,sectarianschisms, and entirely newreligious denominations.
There are two types of reformism. One has no intention of bringing aboutsocialism or fundamental economic change to society and is used to oppose such structural changes. The other is based on the assumption that while reforms are not socialist in themselves, they can help rally supporters to the cause ofrevolution by popularizing the cause of socialism to theworking class.[7]
The debate on the ability ofsocial democratic reformism to lead to a socialist transformation of society is over a century old. Reformism is criticized for being paradoxical as it seeks to overcome the existing economic system ofcapitalism while trying to improve the conditions of capitalism, thereby making it appear more tolerable to society. According toRosa Luxemburg, capitalism is not overthrown, "but is on the contrary strengthened by the development of social reforms".[8] In a similar vein, Stan Parker of theSocialist Party of Great Britain argues that reforms are a diversion of energy for socialists and are limited because they must adhere to the logic of capitalism.[7]
French social theoristAndre Gorz criticized reformism by advocating a third alternative to reformism andsocial revolution that he called "non-reformist reforms", specifically focused on structural changes to capitalism as opposed toreforms to improve living conditions within capitalism or to prop it up througheconomic interventionism.[9]
In modern times, some reformists are seen ascentre-right. For example, the historicalReform Party of Canada advocated structural changes to government to counter what they believed was the disenfranchisement of Western Canadians.[10] Some social democratic parties such as the aforementionedSocial Democratic Party of Germany and the CanadianNew Democratic Party are still considered to be reformist and are seen ascentre-left.[11]
The firstmodern socialists of the 19th century followedutopian socialism.[12] Rather than advocating for revolution, thinkers such asHenri de Saint-Simon,Charles Fourier, andRobert Owen believed they could convince the governments and ruling classes in England and France to adopt their schemes through persuasion.[12] Reformism has expressed itself in socialism through a willingness to challenge revolutionary tenets of Marxist orthodoxy and through objections to aspects ofscientific socialism, being broadly labeled asreformist socialism orprogressive socialism. 19th century economist G.A. Kleene referred to progressive socialism as containingEduard Bernstein’s position against “‘Old-School’ Marxism."[13] Reformist willingness to challenge scientific socialism, such as through critique to thelaw of increasing misery, has been historically connected to the concept of progressive socialism.[14]
In 1875, theSocial Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) adopted aLassallist orientation in itsGotha Program, which proposed "every lawful means" on a way to a "socialist society" and was criticized byKarl Marx, who consideredcommunist revolution a required step. One of the delegates to the SPD congress was Bernstein, who later expanded on the concept, proposing what he termed "evolutionary socialism." Bernstein’s "revisionism" was quickly targeted byrevolutionary socialists.Rosa Luxemburg condemned Bernstein's evolutionary socialism in her 1900 essaySocial Reform or Revolution? and theorthodox MarxistKarl Kautsky sharply criticized Bernstein’s framework in his 1909 workRoad to Power.[15][16] After Luxemburg died in theGerman Revolution, reformists in the SPD soon found themselves contending with theBolsheviks and their satellitecommunist parties for the support ofintellectuals and theworking class. In 1959, theGodesberg Program (signed at a party convention inBad Godesberg in the West German capital ofBonn) marked the shift of the SPD from anorthodox Marxist program espousing an end to thecapitalist system to a reformist one focused onsocial reform.[17]
AfterJoseph Stalin consolidated power in the Soviet Union, theComintern launched a campaign against the reformist movement by denouncing them as "social fascists." According toThe God that Failed byArthur Koestler, a former member of theCommunist Party of Germany, the largest communist party in Western Europe in the interwar period,communists aligned with the Soviet Union continued to consider the SPD to be the real enemy in Germany even after theNazi Party had gotten into power.[18]
InItaly during the onslaught ofItalian fascism,Carlo Rosselli broadly concurred with Bernstein's revisionist and reformist assessment of orthodox Marxism, endorsing the perspective that socialism ought to be the democratic successor ofliberalism and emphasizinganti-fascism. Both Rosselli and Bernstein dismissed the rigorous historical materialism and deterministic perspective of class struggle intrinsic to traditional Marxism, instead endorsing a pragmatic, ethical, and political approach tosocial democracy within the framework of existingliberal-democratic institutions (which Rosselli worked into his framework ofliberal socialism).[19]
Reformism is not directly synonymous withgradualism. However,Fabianism in theUnited Kingdom, while not a direct parallel of theMarxist reformism associated with Bernstein and the German SPD, is noted as having "undoubtedly done much toward the permeation of public opinion with a progressive evolutionary socialism" and being a gradualisttendency within progressive socialism or reformist socialism.[20] Reformism was applied to elements within the BritishLabour Party in the 1950s and subsequently on the party's right wing.[citation needed]Anthony Crosland wroteThe Future of Socialism (1956) as a personal manifesto arguing for a reformulation of the term.[citation needed] For Crosland, the relevance ofnationalization, orpublic ownership, forsocialists was much reduced as a consequence of contemporaryfull employment,Keynesian management of the economy and reduced capitalist exploitation.[citation needed] After the third successive defeat of his party in the1959 general election,Hugh Gaitskell attempted to reformulate the original wording ofClause IV in the party's constitution, but proved unsuccessful.[citation needed] Some of the younger followers of Gaitskell, principallyRoy Jenkins,Bill Rodgers andShirley Williams, left the Labour Party in 1981 to found theSocial Democratic Party, but the central objective of theGaitskellites was eventually achieved byTony Blair in his successful attempt to rewrite Clause IV in 1995.[citation needed]
In the modern day, progressive or reformist socialism may be associated with the left-wing ofsocial democracy, or the moderate or "mainstream" wing ofdemocratic socialism, andliberal socialism.[21][22][23][24][25]
[Reformism is] a doctrine or movement advocating reform, esp[ecially] political or religious reform, rather than abolition.
One may envisage the events according to the traditional view as follows. Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in 458 with the sole aim — and by order of the Persian king — to promulgate a religious reform. [...] Presumably, after his reforms Ezra returned to Susa. [...] During Nehemiah's twelve-year stay in Jerusalem Ezra returned and supported Nehemiah's attempts to carry through his reforms. [...] the temple had been rebuilt, the wall of Jerusalem restored, the cultic activities properly organized, and the purity of the religion preserved.
Within the past few years, however, Marxism, as a theory and a political method, has entered upon a crisis that perhaps indicates its dissolution, while in the movement represented by Bernstein, the editor and biographer of Lassalle, but long known as a Marxist, there has come to the front a Socialism that bears closer resemblance to that of Lassalle than to that of Marx. Lassalle is not invoked as its leader; the cry 'Back to Lassalle' has not been raised, but there is, nevertheless, a turning from Marxian materialism to idealism, from marxian dislike of patriotism and the national spirit to an acknowledgment of the importance of national interests, from Marxian hatred of the present state to a recognition of what governments, as organized today, have done and can do for the laboring class.
Kautsky said at the Lübeck Congress of 1901: 'Increasing misery is to be understood only as a tendency, and not as an unconditional truth.' In reply to him,Dr. David, a progressive socialist, said: 'If one alters one's opinion one should have the courage and strength to say, 'We made a mistake.'
From Marxism the road leads torevisionism, and from revisionism toliberalism. This progression is inevitable. Thirty years ago Bernstein let it be understood that this would be the conclusion. The socialist movement means everything, he said, and the end means nothing...This was the formulation of a liberal socialist. At the time it caused a scandal. Today it is on the way to becoming the characteristic point of view of the entire new socialist generation.
By its popular lectures and discussions, by its tracts and its articles in the monthly reviews, as well as by its activity in the press, the Fabian Society has undoubtedly done much toward the permeation of public opinion with a progressive evolutionary socialism.
