Rethinking Reforms

Rethinking Reforms

The Trump election brought numerous horrifying political developments in the federal government as well as the growth of (organized) fascist violence. However, the growth of the left and workers’ struggles counter those serious developments. The declaration of the “death of the left and the working class” seems to have been premature given the growth of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a new wave of elected officials who are self-identified socialists and members of socialist organizations, a wave of teachers’ strikes, and new organizing in the social sphere to list a few counter-narratives. These inspiring developments surface questions of reforms and reformism with different political contexts and meanings. The question of reformism is no longer a question of posturing among small groups- it has real strategic significance in the here and now as well as long-term implications that are more real today than they have been for decades. In this context, advocates of electoral paths to socialism have outlined their strategy that places great importance on non-reformist and universal reforms.

In a brief intervention into this debate, Tim Horras from Philly Socialists makes an argument against the strategy of non-reformist reforms in his article “Reforms are just reforms.” In it, Horras argues that non-reformist reforms make reforms out to be something they are not. While certain reforms may have a positive impact on the working class, they do not add up over time and weaken capitalism. Their ability to win reforms does not readily translate into their ability to end capitalism. Reforms are, in the end, just reforms. While Horras is correct to push back against the almost teleological view of reforms presented by advocates of non-reformist reforms, his alternative view leaves much to be desired. In trying to break from a linear connection between the struggle for reforms and socialist transition, Horras ends up leaving a gap between current struggles and long-term goals. Horras’s criticisms reproduce key errors of the argument for the non-reformist reforms he denounces. Instead of a rejection of non-reformist reforms that takes the reformist account on its own terms, a new strategy is needed for approaching questions of reforms that takes into account the flaws of the non-reformist reform framework.

Problem with Non Reformist Reforms

People from a wide range of tendencies on the left adapt “non-reformist reforms” to their needs, often superficially. To provide some clarity, two of the main uses will be highlighted. Philosopher and journalist Andre Gorz developed the concept of non-reformist reforms. For Gorz, reformist reforms are reforms that are reconciled with the needs of the capitalist class. They do not seek to undermine or destroy the capitalist system as opposed to “non-reformist reforms” which are reforms that directly attack capitalism with the goal of destroying it.

Contemporary advocates of non-reformist reforms take this a step further. They position reforms that not only weaken capital but also make it more possible for the working class to organize and assert their power. The current popular reform that is touted as a non-reformist reform is Medicare for All. Advocates of this view assert that nationalizing health insurance, hospitals, and medical services would severely weaken capitalists’ hold on the working class. Workers would no longer have to worry about losing their healthcare if they were to lose their job by going on strike or trying to organize. This would embolden workers to take more risks.

Both the strategy of non-reformist reforms as formulated by Gorz and by current proponents are deeply flawed. Not just that, current proponents present a version that misrepresents and misuses Gorz. However, before getting into any criticism of either conception of non-reformist reforms, it’s important to recognize the obvious if partial truth of the second formulation. Laws and reforms clearly impact class struggle and working-class organizations. Laws like Taft-Hartley make militant action difficult. Repealing such laws would free workers from the negative consequences of shop floor and direct action. Similarly, one cannot deny that reforms which make workers less precarious during strike action and organizing make these things easier to do.

The problem is that the reality of reforms, whether they have reformist or non-reformist intention, is very different. According to both Gorz and current proponents of non-reformist reforms, the strategy depends on the reforms being winnable. The winnability of a reform does not speak to the exact content of a reform when it gets enacted. Reforms will often contain concessions to capitalism- its more radical elements watered down- and new provisions added. This is a risk when dealing with reforms that are won by means that do not create high stakes for capitalists and the government if they do not enact the reform. Until the strength and organizational level of the working class is such that it creates these challenges to capitalists and the state, any major reform is going to be much more limited if enacted than the proponents of non-reformist reforms envision.

Non-reformist reforms as advocated by Gorz run into the issue of the limitations of using the capitalist state as a vehicle for transition, movements losing steam, and the socialist coalition caving and reconciling with capitalists. Whereas contemporary advocates are even more vulnerable to these issues as they attempt to make limited reforms without a strong mass working-class movement, the potential for institutionalization and compromise is great, a danger that Gorz heavily warns against. For Gorz, the strategy already assumes a mature workers’ movement, one that has had numerous shows of strength through things such as mass strikes. Gorz explicitly states “[i]f the socialist revolution is not immediately possible, neither is the realization of reforms immediately destructive of capitalism.” Reforms that are immediately destructive to capitalism are what non-reformist reforms are by Gorz’s original formulation. This is clearly distinct from what contemporary advocates present as non-reformist reforms and refers to a very different articulation of class struggle. Instead, the current use of “non-reformist reforms” refers to reforms meant to help kick-start or facilitate the process of growth and strengthening of the working-class movement before it is able to bring capitalism to the brink of destruction. The reforms they advocate are not especially disruptive let alone destructive to capitalism, as we can see with single-payer health care and the Medicare for All campaign.

The actual policy of Medicare for All put forward by advocacy groups is very limited, the actual bill even more so. It does not put forward a nationalization of insurance, only the expansion of a public option, leaving private insurance companies relatively untouched. It does not involve nationalization of hospitals and other treatment facilities. Even if it were to include all those things, the model for a more complete Medicare for All that advocates point to- the British and Swedish national healthcare services- demonstrate that such a reform does not actually threaten and destabilize capitalism. A national healthcare service does not decommodify healthcare as advocates claim. While it makes healthcare accessible, it does not touch pharmaceuticals- outside of limited price controls- or tech industries attached to health care which pressure the nationalized aspects of health care policy through market influences. Medicare for All and single-payer fall short of the standards of a non-reformist reform.