Reformists Vs Revolutionary Socialism

Student’s Name
Instructor
Subject
Date
Reformists versus Revolutionary Socialism
Reformist socialism involves reformists inclinations in which they believe that the enacting of slow reforms within and through current institutions can eventually transform the political structures of a given society. Additionally, these changes can bring about alter critical economic systems within a community. The concept of social reform was a result of notable antagonism against revolutionary socialism. Revolutionary socialism is a supposition that a social revolution is indispensable to impact some structural modifications within a community. More notably, it is a theory alleging that revolution is an essential prerequisite for bringing about any transformations in a country from capitalism to socialism. This paper identifies the differences and similarities between reformist and revolutionary socialism.
1. Differences and Similarities
While reformist socialism believes in imposing gradual changes in the existing institutions within a government to bring about the significant structural transitions, revolutionary believes a revolution is necessary (Lenin n.p). Therefore, reformism posits that an accretion of modification in current national systems can result in the formation of an entirely altered socioeconomic structure. It is important to note that a revolution does not inevitably involve sadistic uprisings. Instead, Lenin indicates that revolution entails the convulsion of an existing political power by working class’ mass movements such that the working class directly controls a country instead of the capitalists and their interests (n.

p). Also, while reformists seek after progressive changes in a current government, revolutionaries suggest the overall transition of the structures that they deem unfair and as a problem. Additionally, reformists aim at improving the working people conditions while still ensuring the ruling power remains intact (Lenin n.p). This explains why reformism is perceived as a paradox in that while it seeks to overcome capitalism, it also attempts to develop the order of capitalism. In contrast, revolutionaries aim at eliminating the entire existence of capitalism by giving control to the working persons. Nevertheless, these two groups have one thing in common in that they both acknowledge the existence of problems in the current governance and operation of various areas within a country and therefore necessitate change.
While reforms tend to be slow paced and can potentially be reversed, revolutions are radical, and the aftermath is highly unlikely to change. Also, reformism includes not changing the existing status quo but rather improving various areas. On the other hand, revolutions include the disruption of the current status quo through the adoption of the drastic measure. An example is the 1786 French Revolution, though violent, which brought about an entire change following people’s dissatisfaction with the existing power that exploited the working people. Lastly, the perception of a revolution is often negative as it sometimes involves violence. In contrast, the view on reforms is often effective as it is usually peaceful.
2. Advantages of Reformism and Revolutionary Socialism
Both reformist and revolutionary socialism tend to pressure current powers into modifying the current condition such that it accommodates all members of society. Additionally, they seek after promoting the overall welfare of all citizens by either improving their current lifestyles or demanding equality to all by offering the working class an opportunity to contribute to the production of goods and services. Therefore, the two concepts benefit all citizens equally. For example, the Great Reform Act endorsed in 1832 in England brought about positive changes to the working class who previously worked under poor working conditions.
3. Marx’s Believe in Violent Revolution to Acquire Socialism
Marx emphasized on the inevitability of a vicious socialist revolution which he believed the bourgeois societal structures determined it as well as their historical developments. Additionally, Marx alleged that there are times in which the productive powers within a state stop being prolific and instead become destructive consequently causing harm to current correlations (Singh 9). In this case, Marx believed that this period of halted production involves a particular group of people obtaining their power from their possession and expressing their rule through the state. Also, this time includes another group of individuals within the society, which makes the majority of the entire populace, who gets to bear the country as a whole’s burden yet do not enjoy the benefits (Singh 9). As a result, Marx believed that it is during this occurrence that the burden bearers become conscious of the need and significance of a revolution in the current governance (Singh 9). The development of this realization buds to a point where these individuals focus on overthrowing the current way of operation.
Marx stress on not only the inescapability but also the need for a revolution. Marx and Eagles indicated that revolution was the only way to oust the rulers and also through this way, the ousting party could rid itself of mess resulting from exposure to this governance as well as be able to start a new society (60). The presence of classes in the community emerging as a result of capitalism leave the working persons oppressed a situation that can be achieved through a social revolution and abolition of such classes by the working group. Additionally, Marx and Eagles points out peaceful developments were likely to change abruptly into aggression due to rebellion by those in a high position of the old system (60). Marx suggested the inevitability of a fight as a total revolution because ending a society with basis on the antagonism of classes is a vigorous opposition. Marx indicates that until the emergence of a new society that lacks societal divisions in the form of classes “on the eve of every general reshuffling of society, the last word of social science will always be ‘combat or death, bloody struggle or extinction ‘…” (214).
4. Reasons behind Mill’s Rejection of Revolution and Promotion for Gradualism
Mill firmly believed and supported various parts proposed by socialism as he was aware of the selfishness practiced by some individuals and institutions in power. However, the philosopher sturdily opposition and instead supported gradualism and small-scale experimentation. Mill believed that a revolution would be a premature introduction of socialist reforms into working and thus his stand on progressive socialism which involved trial and testing. Also, Mill disregarded violent revolutionary, a contradiction to what gradual reformism promotes. Also, Mill opposed rapid changes to the current property laws which threatened security (Arneson 239). The philosopher also suggested the significance of lengthy education procedures for any worker to have the ability to rule or participate in a country.
Marx’s response would have been as indicated earlier the need for a revolution as the sole way to rid the society of the previous mark caused by the old structure. Also, the suggested property law that Mill feared primarily affected the ruling powers which promoted the formation of classes, an aspect that a revolution aimed at abolishing. Lastly, a revolution encouraged equality of all citizens and therefore, all citizens would have equal chance to access education needed to help with the governing, an opportunity that was rare for middle and lower class in the current regime.
Works Cited
Armeson, Richard. “Mill’s Doubts about Freedom under Socialism,” in New Essay on John
Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism. Cooper, Nielson & Patten (eds) Guelph, Ontario Canadian Association for Publishing in Philosophy, 1979, 231-249.
Lenin, V. I. “Marxism and Reformism.” Progress Publishers, 1977.
Marx, Karl. “The Poverty of Philosophy.” Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, 161-214.
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich. “The German Ideology.” Progress Publishers, Moscow,1976,
p.60.
Singh, Rustam. “Status of Violence in Marx’s Theory of Revolution.” JSTOR, 1989, (24)4: 8-14.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4394305?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents