Reform and Revolution

[RedStruggle]

Hey, please note that I am a revolutionary socialist and am asking this question not because I advocate reformism, but because I would appreciate input. I think that one of the most important elements of Socialism is trying to deal with the exploitation and inequality in the distribution of income and wealth that exists under Capitalism and ensuring that everyone is able to have access to basic necessities - but why is a revolution - a change to a new economic system - necessary to do this - why can't we just have advanced and extensive reforms under capitalism (through welfare etc) to make peoples' lies better. Thanks!

[Janus]

why can't we just have advanced and extensive reforms under capitalism (through welfare etc) to make peoples' lies better
They can only work so long as people continue to place an effort and so long as the capitalists are continually willing to conceded. However, history has shown that this is usually not the case as general periods of reaction always follow the eras of reform. We do not want to transform capitalism and make it more "people friendly", we want to destroy it so that it can no longer exploit or oppress at all. Engaging in such reformism has always led to a sacrifice of such long-term goals and resulted in a static movement that is more focused on winning votes than in actually fundamentally changing the system

Past threads on this:
reform (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62291&hl=reform*)
reform (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59111&hl=reform*)
reformism with teeth (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56447&hl=reform*)
reformism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54279&hl=reform*)
reform (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43998&hl=reform*)
reform (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40119&hl=reform*)
reformism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38940&hl=reform*)
reformism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=29880&hl=reform*)
reform or revolution (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=28972&hl=reform*)
reforms (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=27881&hl=reform*)

[mikelepore]

One reason is: name any social problem whatsoever -- war, poverty, economic depressions, pollution, drug addiction, underfunded education, the abuse of children -- name any -- and the division of society into ruling and ruled classes either directly causes it, or, if it doesn't entirely cause it then it greatly magnifies the intensity of it. This should be a signal to the intelligent mind that there's something fundamentally wrong with the structure of the system. If it's poorly operating system of doing things, what's the point in retaining it forever and trying to patch it as it keeps malfunctioning every few seconds?

Another reason is there is one feature of capitalism that can never be reformed out of it, and that is the fact that workers receive in the form of wages a mere fraction of the wealth that they produce. If this weren't so then the capitalist would layoff the workers immediately. When labor produces more value in the product than it's own exchange value as commodity labor power, that is the use value that the capitalist buys the labor power for.

[angus_mor]

Why is reform a waste of time? Ask yourself this: "Is there socialism in United States? Canada? The European Union?"

But it's interesting that you would bring up this subject, for I have the perfect read for you:

Reform or Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm)

[Dominick]

Reforming capitalism will not negate the irrationality of the system.

[mikelepore]

Out of curiosity, in case if anyone knows, can anyone think of any times in history when progressive people advocated a more fundamental and less fundamental change at the same time? For example, were there any people who said something like: we demand and insist on the abolition of slavery, but, just in case we're unable to achieve that, then the law should adopt some limits on the use of the whip against the slaves. Did any goals of that type get expressed in the past? I would think that achieving the more fundamental change relies on its advocates focusing clearly on what they really want, and not adding the distraction of alternative ideas that might applied in the event that what they want doesn't get achieved.

[Rawthentic]

The nature of the capitalist-imperialist system subjugates all political forms, no matter how democratic. So, only systemic change can result in freedom and real democracy.

Not to say that reforms arent important sometimes, it just depends what it means to us and where it comes from; the people striking and demanding or pandering to politicians.

[Tower of Bebel]

Reformist parties are made by a branche of the bourgeoisie that wants more democracy and a world where justice reigns. But democracy and justice in a capitalist society. A new society is out of the question. Everytime there is revolution with the possibiity to create a new society you will that social-democratic parties turn against the masses and betray them.