this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2026
853 points (85.6% liked)
Political Memes
12626 readers
1890 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Reformism cannot actually establish socialism"
Says who? No, really, tell me. I'm not saying it's the only way but this statement lacks context, history, or imagination.
Rosa Luxembourg 126 years ago.
Great! A data point from a time where the industrial revolution hadn't even started walking briskly.
How does this mean anything to me today aside from a consideration in the huge calculus of direct action?
If you're going to take the position that systems/philosophies are illegitimate purely based on their age, then boy do I have some fun facts for you regarding the timeline between the inception of most of the US political systems and Rosa's work. By that logic, the US is entirely illegitimate.
No I am saying they are made insignificant by the growth of a body of work surrounding them.
What I'm saying is shit happens, then we know more about shit and instead of one idea, we have n+ ideas.
The further back you go the more information and context you're going to have to ignore in order for that datapoint to maintain complete signifigance. It's real easy. I'm challenging you to prove the relevance of a historical claim in the face of the history that has taken place since.
And yeah how is America doing these days? How's all that idealism and grit holding up? You get my point now follow through already instead of being a goddamn stereotype.
Essentially, the state is a product of class struggle, and is a superstructural reinforcement of the underlying base of society. The state is not a neutral, system-indepentent "state," but specifically a "feudal state," a "capitalist state," a "socialist state." The systems and mechanisms of a capitalist state cannot simply be reformed from within, they depend on and are built to support the actual capitalist system.
Throughout history, major changes in modes of production have come through revolution. Reformist approaches like in Chile with Allende end swiftly in coups, and we are seeing the current struggles in Venezuela due to not having a complete revolution (though the commune movement is still building dual power). It isn't simply a lack of imagination, it's something tested time and time again throughout history.
You really need to work on being concise and accessible, this isn't a classroom it's a comment section.
And both of those examples were, I'm just gonna guess, subsumed by US CIA activity and not an organic failing of reformism.
So what's the solution, revolution the CIA away? Does that sound like a good plan?
The CIA certainly helped in both cases, but the actual state apparatus in both Venezuela and Chile worked against the socialists. In Chile, Pinochet used the capitalist military to coup Allende, in Venezuela companies and businesses resist any progress from the PSUV. The solution is to replace the capitalist state with a socialist one, which doesn't make you immune to CIA influence, but does provide the basis for maintaining socialism domestically without retaining mechanisms that rely on private property to function.
Again, concise.
All I'm getting is the US planted opposition during the Red Scare and did a foreign interference, again if the goal is to show reformism always fails you're going to need to show an example that doesn't involve a psychotic i.perialist state actor actively undemining it. A control, I'm asking for a control group here.
It's not just Chile and Venezuela. The Paris Commune was overthrown because they didn't march on Versailles. Reformism has never established socialism in history, while revolution has.
The Paris Commune was a reform movement?
This is why i don't take you seriously.
No? The Paris Commune neglected to abolish the capitalist state.
If we're looking at defining things by how they resulted then we have a wholly different standard for argumentation here, but unless you want to find a different definition to suit your terms, it was a radical military takeover by the natiknal guard in the name of revolution that sought to implement progressive changes, yes? I'm not a historian so I'm kind of breezing through here but if they were a reform movement would have thought you were describing a parliamentary caucus but this doesn't appear to be the case.
Either way, yeah, obviously if you leave an army standing in opposition you're going to have a bad time. Still not a reform movement.
It wasn't a reform movement, it was a failed revolution for the same reason reformism fails. They did not correctly target the state, and so the state was used to crush them. Allende and Venezuela are examples of reformism attempted, but even Venezuela relies heavily on the Bolivarian revolution to keep going.
You're losing me. So you brought up a revolution to compare it to reformation, and in all cases it's because the state is too powerful to reform so then... revolution is the way but only if we do it right?
Am I going crazy, is this not a really roundabout way to try and circular logic how nothing gets done until we dismantle a state first? Because then that is a whole other thing and I did not sign up for that. Just saying that's how doesn't describe how it's even feasible.
There have been many failed revolutions, yes. There have also been many successful revolutions. There have been no successful reformations of a state to represent the rising class. That's the center point, and I provided historical examples of what reform and failed revolution have in common: failing to dismantle the superstructure and create a new one. There are much longer explanations, such as Reform or Revolution and The State and Revolution, but these are just comments on Lemmy.
And as I stated elsewhere, I don't think the text here bears the burden of historical context in our current day.
I'm gonna go do something else. Have a nice day.
Do you have a reason for that claim other than their being old? History affirms their theoretical basis thus far.