And revolution is just extreme reformism. Where is the line?
No it isnt. Do the word-definition thing again. One seeks to replace a system the other seeks to “fix” the existing system.
Jesus fucking christ, read theory. All your very clever thoughts have already been talked through and deflated over a century ago. This is why people tell you to read, because all of this has already been answered. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/
Ok: “In political science, a revolution (Latin: revolutio, ‘a turn around’) is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society’s class, state, ethnic, or religious structures.” - Wikipedia. The page actually spends quite a lot of time expanding on that definition, including several notes that it is often considered necessary to have an extrasystemic component, that is, that a reform from entirely within the system would not count as a revolution. My point was more that revolution is a type of reform, rather than that reform is a type of revolution. You can fix a system by replacing it. You can also fix it in place. There is no fundamental obstacle that appears in the latter case.
My point was more that revolution is a type of reform, rather than that reform is a type of revolution.
As both the wiki and you just stated, it isn’t. Youre welcome to make words mean whatever you want them to mean to you, but it will make conversation harder in a broader context and nigh impossible in an academic one. Instead of arguing with me about this, read Rosa Luxembourg.
No it isnt. Do the word-definition thing again. One seeks to replace a system the other seeks to “fix” the existing system.
Jesus fucking christ, read theory. All your very clever thoughts have already been talked through and deflated over a century ago. This is why people tell you to read, because all of this has already been answered.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/
Ok: “In political science, a revolution (Latin: revolutio, ‘a turn around’) is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society’s class, state, ethnic, or religious structures.” - Wikipedia. The page actually spends quite a lot of time expanding on that definition, including several notes that it is often considered necessary to have an extrasystemic component, that is, that a reform from entirely within the system would not count as a revolution. My point was more that revolution is a type of reform, rather than that reform is a type of revolution. You can fix a system by replacing it. You can also fix it in place. There is no fundamental obstacle that appears in the latter case.
Interesting link. Will read.
As both the wiki and you just stated, it isn’t. Youre welcome to make words mean whatever you want them to mean to you, but it will make conversation harder in a broader context and nigh impossible in an academic one. Instead of arguing with me about this, read Rosa Luxembourg.