Stephen Coleman wrote:Like other terms of political abuse which have been absorbed into our political vocabulary, the term ‘impossibilism’ tells us as much or more about the labellers as it does about the idea being described. After the French legislative election of October 1881, in which the Fédération du Parti des Travailleurs Socialistes de France won only 60,000 of the 7 million votes cast, a group based around Paul Brousse and Benoît Malon began to advocate a more pragmatic, reformist policy for the Fédération. "We prefer to abandon the 'all-at-once' tactic practised until now" proclaimed those who referred to themselves as Possibilists. "We desire to divide our ideal ends into several gradual stages to make many of our demands immediate ones and hence possible of realisation." The Possibilists regarded socialism as a progressive social process rather than an "all-at-once" end. Those who regarded capitalism and socialism as mutually exclusive systems and refused to budge from the revolutionary position of what has become known as ‘the maximum programme’ were labelled as impossibilists.
...
William Morris...declared that "The palliatives over which many worthy people are busying themselves now are useless." Morris’s conception of socialism, which he advocated both in the League and in the years after he left it, was characterised by an awareness – uncommon amongst those claiming to be socialists, both then and now – of the nature of the social transformation which socialism would entail.
...
That Morris was dismissed as a utopian dreamer by many self-styled socialists in his own day and since, tells us more about their conservatism than his vision. As Karl Mannheim commented, with a relevance to the concept of impossibilism of which he was not aware: "The representatives of a given order will label as utopian all conceptions of existence which from their point of view can in principle never be realized.
http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/2009/09/
The legacy of the possibilists is real enough. Capitalist states that nevertheless provide public health care is evidence of that. But because the gains exist within the strictures of a hostile system, they're forever vulnerable. Is that as good as it gets? Was that as good as it got?
I'm thinking too of Canada's NDP. It's always been a possibilist party, even when it was known as the CCF, and its founding document stated "We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be eliminated." It's been a long time since New Democrat leaders talked about replacing the capitalist system. That's another legacy of possibilism: the accumulation of compromises that progressively bankrupt the imagination for life without the system.
The current NDP constitution has a preamble that begins, "The New Democratic Party believes that the social, economic and political progress of Canada can be assured only by the application of socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs." So now, after 70 years, it's about socialist principles applied within a capitalist system. But even that's too impossible now for the party leaders, who want their own Clause IV moment by proposing it be changed to: "The New Democratic Party believes that social justice, equality, and environmental sustainability are vital to achieving a strong, united and prosperous Canada for all. To that end, the New Democratic Party is dedicated to the application of social democratic principles to government." If it passes, socialism will be gone, even as friendly ghost. (This will come to a vote at the party's weekend convention.)
The art of the possible in Western politics always begins with the presumption of capitalism. Especially now, when it's never been more fragile or vulnerable to critique.
So now may be the time for some impossibilism.
