Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution is a vital text for revolutionary socialists. Esmae Devlin discusses Luxemburg’s arguments and their relevance for those in struggle today.
Rosa Luxemburg has few equals in history: as a writer, a thinker and a revolutionary. Throughout more than three decades of activism, she made an outstanding contribution to the struggle for a more equal, democratic, socialist world. Luxemburg developed a hugely impressive body of work, much of which continues to retain its relevance in the contemporary world. Reform or Revolution is one of her most enduring pieces, a book she wrote at the turn of the twentieth century in order to defend the need for a socialist revolution against capitalism. It remains invaluable reading for socialists today.
Context
Luxemburg’s target was Eduard Bernstein—a German thinker who attempted to recast socialist strategy as a gradualist endeavour. This means he thought socialism could be achieved through piecemeal legislative reform within the framework of capitalism.
To put it bluntly, Bernstein was a reformist: convinced that the growth in German capitalism during the 1890s would result in a bit-by-bit development towards socialism. Revolution was not required, therefore, nor were revolutionary methods (mass strikes, militant protest etc). For Bernstein, all that was needed was the election of the right type of progressive government.
It’s understandable how Bernstein and many others may have reached this conclusion. The scope of the SPD (the socialist party to which he and Luxemburg both belonged at the time) cannot be underplayed during this period. It was the second largest party in the Reichstag, with around 1 million members. The SPD had a base in parliament and an extensive system of associations that stretched across working class life in Germany. The SPD formed sports clubs, chess clubs and choirs. In the context of capitalist growth, and given this slow seemingly unstoppable growth of socialist organisation, you can almost forgive Bernstein for having faith in the gradualist approach.
However, hindsight has not been kind to Bernstein. Within a decade and half capitalism had “gradually” evolved towards the horrors of WW1, rather than the egalitarian socialism that Bernstein had predicted. But Bernstein is far from the last “progressive” to be lured by the appeal of the reformist method. A century or more removed from his work, and many progressives continue to be drawn in by reformist politics. Luxemburg sought to chart a different course. Reform and Revolution is her thunderous retort to Bernstein’s gradualism: a restatement of the capitalist nature of the state and the urgent need for workers’ revolution; and a ground-breaking consideration on the relationship between immediate struggles today and the ultimate goal of socialism in the future. In short, it is a masterclass in the relationship of theory to practice.
Reform or Revolution
In Reform or Revolution, the key argument that Luxemburg propagates is that we cannot consider reform and revolution as two entirely separate strategies to achieve socialism. Rather, there is an “indissoluble tie” between the two. She warned against the “extreme deviations of anarchism and opportunism.” In other words, she argues against the anarchist idea that reforms are more or less useless, and we should crush capitalism in a more immediate sense through things like direct action, for example.
Crucially though, she also argues against the reformist line of thinking that today’s strategy is the implementation of reforms, and tomorrow’s strategy is revolution. Both the anarchist and the reformist miss the mark because according to Luxemburg, you don’t do one or the other; you don’t do reforms or revolution, rather you implement reforms through revolutionary means. They work in tandem to achieve the same end goal.
For example, we utilise parliamentary politics not because we seek to reform the liberal political system, but rather to bolster the workers’ struggle. Luxemburg argued that “Proletarian parliamentarianism” could be “a weapon of class struggle”. It offers us a unique opportunity to expose the government for its failures and more importantly its class antagonisms, as they continue to vote for austerity and scramble to crush any attempts to implement measures which may alleviate the difficulties workers face.
It’s a similar case for building a mass movement; whether it be the Repeal movement or the pro-Palestine movement. When you win reforms like Repeal through revolutionary struggle, it lifts the confidence of the working class and emboldens them to fight for more. When we don’t win them, as is often the case in the Palestine solidarity movement, it can be demoralising, sure, but it also has the capacity to further agitate the working class to fight even harder for peace and justice – because when people engage in mass struggle for reforms, when they come up against the very limits of capitalism and see how it creates the very inequality and oppression that forces us to fight for reform, the system’s ultimate irreformability is exposed.
This is why although Luxemburg mainly focuses on the issues with reformism, she also pushes back against anarchists who may dismiss the importance of the mass movement. In the ‘Mass Strike’ Luxemburg explained that every strike is a window into revolution. Socialism is everywhere. It’s in every strike, every protest and every march. That is what we mean by reform through revolutionary means.
Furthermore, as alluded to, it is also of utmost importance to push back against the reformist belief that we can implement a few reforms now and then worry about the revolution later. It doesn’t work like that, and she writes in regards to the proletariat revolution that “the struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim.” She stresses that the continued struggle for revolution is what differentiates us from those seeking to simply fix the flawed system. She takes issue with Bernstein because he encourages the proletariat to put their trust in a more gradualist approach that focuses exclusively on the movement that exists right now rather than having a vision for the future.
Luxemburg argues that not only that reformism is not an alternative method to achieving socialism, it’s a method to achieve something entirely different. She writes, “instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they [reformists] take a stand for surface modifications of the old society.” In other words, we no longer strive for “the realisation of socialism, but the reform of capitalism.” We are not reforming our way into socialism, we are simply reforming capitalism – this is not the same process at all, and ultimately the more likely outcome of this strategy is that the “reformists” will themselves adjust to the capitalist system, rather than adjusting the system. This was proven by the SPD’s decision to support WW1 with a vote in favour of war credits in 1914. Even if this weren’t the case, Luxemburg highlights the fact that class divisions are not written into legislative law, but rather they developed naturally under the capitalist economic system. On this basis it is impossible to reform away the oppression of the working class.
Another aspect to this that Luxemburg urges us to consider is the intention behind the reformist method. She accuses Bernstein multiple times of being an opportunist who is simply trying to retain his own power within petty bourgeois circles as opposed to encouraging the seizure of political power by the proletariat. She expands on this idea stating that “the question of reform or revolution…is basically, in another form, but the question of the petty bourgeois or proletarian character of the labour movement.” The theoretical basis of the mass movement is key to its success, and Luxemburg repeatedly emphasises that “the entire strength of the modern labour movement rests on theoretical knowledge”. Precisely for this reason she asserts that Marxist theoretical knowledge cannot be concentrated in the hands of the few who may be led “astray” in the pursuit of their own selfish aims (i.e. opportunists like Bernstein). She insists that political theory must be studied by all workers to ensure that the proletarian and revolutionary nature of the socialist movement is maintained.
Luxemburg unsurprisingly takes issue with Bernstein’s disregard for Marxist theory and makes the argument that we cannot progress beyond Marx’s ideas by completely abandoning them. In fact, you can’t move beyond Marxist theory at all, instead you’ll end up falling behind it, making primitive arguments that Marx himself challenged and disproved. This is why theory is so important in Luxemburg’s view, and it is on a theoretical basis that she deconstructs the arguments put forth by Bernstein in favour of reformism.
In the final chapter of Reform or Revolution, “opportunism and theory in practice”, she takes him to task for his unoriginality: “all the nice notions found in Bernstein’s doctrine – already existed before him”. In fact she was aghast at just how simple, uninspired and imitative his book was, admitting that her initial reaction to it was, “What? Is that all you have to say? Not the shadow of an original thought! Not a single idea that was not refuted, crushed, reduced into dust by Marxism several decades ago!”
Finally, in the very last line of reform or revolution she states that ultimately, “the working class will “[throw him] aside contemptuously and with pride.”
Relevance
What’s more important than her decimating Bernstein on the world stage – beyond the enjoyment of reading it – is the question of why her writing is relevant for us today. There are an abundance of examples in recent decades which prove that winning socialism is not as easy as winning elections. Today in Ireland we see Sinn Féin’s continuous rightwards drift despite growing North and South. We also see all kinds of liberal and left leaning forces in the South being sucked into the world of war, and putting Ireland’s neutrality at risk with the potential scrapping of the triple lock. Not only are politicians buying into the idea of a European army, but they stand idly by as Shannon and Aldergrove are used to transport weaponry used in the genocide of Palestinians.
Similarly, Ireland’s “Celtic Tiger” period is often characterised as a prosperous time for the entire Irish population. However, a bigger GDP does not automatically mean better conditions for the working class. That wealth is still largely concentrated in the hands of a very small group of individuals. How is it that our economy continues to expand but we can’t afford to house people? The profit motive will always prove to be an immovable obstacle when attempting to implement reforms. Protecting capital will always be more important than providing for the most vulnerable members of our society.
Across the water, many believed Labour could be reformed under Corbyn to become the best vehicle for socialism in Britain. Of course we cannot dismiss his achievements: building one of the most impressive mass movements in the last few decades and enthusing an entire generation of people with the prospect of positive change. But Corbyn watched on with the rest of us as all of this unfurled before him. He too learned in no uncertain terms that reform is a dangerous game. To continually fight for reforms, but to leave the system itself alone, will result in capitalism fighting back, attempting to undo all our efforts. It is a rot, which needs to be taken out at the roots.
Starmer’s complete reversal of every ounce of work Corbyn put into reforming the Labour party is a searing reminder of the limitations of this strategy. It’s a kick in the teeth to watch as Starmer’s Labour now gladly takes the Financial Times’ advice by replacing the welfare state with a warfare state.
Similarly, in America AOC thought she could reform Democratic party from the inside out, but just as Luxemburg warned, oftentimes the reformist method will change you rather than the system. Slowly, since she was first elected, AOC has been drifting farther from the left, aligning closer and closer with the right-wing principles of the Democratic party. In recent years she has been particularly bad on Palestine: struggling to utter the word genocide, clashing with pro-Palestine protesters and falling in line with Kamala Harris’ stance on the issue, focusing primarily on Israeli hostages.
There was similarly a great deal of hope in Greece with the rising power of the left-wing party Syriza, but they too failed to adjust the system, instead adjusting themselves to it. They quickly lost the confidence of their voting base because of how little they were able to achieve in parliamentary politics. Between the neglect of public services which led to a deadly train crash, and a rightward shift on issues like immigration, they were seen to have completely abandoned the leftist politics they were voted in on, and subsequently were decimated in their next elections.
The breadth of these failures prompts the question: what is to be done for us as socialists? The simplest answer is to build a true revolutionary movement, one that recognises the collective strength of the working class in mass strikes, protests and marches; one that utilises parliamentary politics as another arm of the struggle, recognising both its limitations and its ability to expose the establishment for its continued betrayal of the working class. An organisation that builds workers confidence to smash capitalism, because ultimately that is what it will take. On that point, to end with Luxemburg herself: “a new leadership can and must be created by the masses and from the masses. The masses are the crucial factor. They are the rock on which the ultimate victory of the revolution will be built.”
