Mostly talking about stuff like breadtubers, chapo, and media personalities like that, I can kind of tell why people like Bernie and Jezza where they're at. Is it the added wealth being a popular media personality gives you, the need to give a consistent product, the need to appeal to a wide breadth of people, and so on?
edit: also props to Brett at RevLeft for continuing to radicalise himself as the show has gone on
It's a question of strategy and goals. Reforms for reforms sake, are not part of a strategy for the overthrow of capitalism.
Like, for Marxists/revolutionary socialists, overthrowing capitalism is the basis for building better conditions for people, because capitalism simply cannot do this in a sustainable way. There was a period of time in the 20th century where capitalism was booming in the advanced capitalist nations, and the material conditions existed to grant concessions to the labor movement in the form of reforms.
Those conditions never existed in most of the world, the places on the receiving end of imperialist super-exploitation, where capitalism barely supports life, much less improvements and reforms. And those conditions no longer exist everywhere else--capitalism is basically in perpetual crisis, and the perspective of the ruling class worldwide is austerity for the indefinite future.
The non-reformist reformers sort of try to sit on the fence, but IMO, when it comes down to it, a lot of them de facto argue for reforms for reforms sake, and don't work the struggle for reforms into a broader revolutionary perspective/praxis.
agreed! but where I'm confused is that I don't see abolitionists (like angela davis or harsha walia) as advocating for reforms for reforms sake.
Being more concrete, I don't think it's fence sitting to fight for concrete proposals such as defunding the police by 50% (which at least where I live still seems a long way away)! Even though these proposals fall well short of full police/prison abolition, they open up space for further victories that get us closer.
Convincing the working class that the police do not make us safe is also well-grounded in revolutionary perspective/praxis IMO.
I’ve listened to Angela Davis on abolition this summer, and my general take away was not that she advocates the working class taking power so that we can have actual control over the capitalist state such that we can actually abolish the police (and dismantle the rest capitalist state, to be replaced by our own).
Abolishing the police was one goal and abolishing capitalism a different goal.
Abolishing the police isn’t achievable under capitalism, so you could say it’s a transitional demand, a demand that pushes the envelope beyond capitalism, because it is rooted in current conditions but cannot be fulfilled under capitalism.
But the objective of the transitional demand is to raise the perspective that we need to move beyond capitalism, as part of a larger program for actually moving beyond capitalism.
Hmm. I think both of these goals (having control over the capitalist to abolish it state AND abolishing the police) need to happen jointly.
That said, unless I'm missing something I feel like we're somewhat in agreement -- my use of the term "abolitionist reform" seems to be pretty similar to what you were calling a "transitional demand." It's not the end goal, but it brings us closer and challenges power (rather than, say, reformist reforms like police body cameras that entrench existing power structures).