Why Go All The Way?: Social Democracy or Revolution?

Suppose what one cared about most was reforms. Suppose even that one called one’s self a reformist, embracing the term much the way someone who seeks total human emancipation from this rotten system might call themselves a revolutionary. Suppose that the main goal of all of our struggles were to win reforms, to make life more tolerable, to save just a few lives, if saving all were not possible. If that were one’s vision, one’s program, and one’s aim. What would be one’s most effective strategy.

Ironically, the failure of social democracy rests in an inherent flaw in its ideological outlook. To win the type of reforms that would matter: real universal healthcare, an end to war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine; a withdrawal of military bases), universal higher education, etc… one must be a revolutionary. If one is only a social democrat, then one cannot possibly pose enough of a threat to win such strong reforms. This is true for at least two major reasons…

1. Reforms are won through raising the social costs for elites so much, that continuing unjust policies would do more harm for their wealth and power than continuing them would. During the Vietnam war, when professionals and rich people turned against the war they held a press conference, as they thought they were so important of people. What was their reason for turning against the war? Was it because millions were dying and they could no longer morally support the war? Nope. Was it because the U.S. was spending billions of dollars while people suffered at home for lack of social welfare programs? Of course not. The reason given was that we were “losing the next generation”. By that they meant that our streets were in turmoil. Our campuses were being turned upside down. Our military was in revolt. Youth in American were no longer just “antiwar”: they were anti-capitalist; they were feminists; they were anti-racists; they were queer liberationists; they saw their work as in solidarity with revolutions in Vietnam, Cuba, Africa, and elsewhere. By “losing the next generation” they meant that a revolutionary movement so powerful as to threaten the entire elite power structure in of the world capitalist system was rising and gaining in roads in all areas of society. They turned against the Vietnam war because youth were REVOLUTIONARIES, not merely because they demanded reforms or social democracy.

2. People aren’t idiots. They won’t join a movement that seeks to merely reform the status quo - or at least they won’t stay in one for long. People in this country, especially members of our generation, have zero faith in politicians, corporate America, or any of the values or institutions of our nation. They are cynical and reasonably disillusioned about everything they see around them. They want a comprehensive, positive, and hopeful vision of the future. They want to know what life beyond our authoritarian world could look like. Only revolutionaries, armed with a positive vision of a world beyond capitalism, patriarchy, heterosexism, white supremacy, political authoritarianism, and ecological devastation can possibly motivate the youth of this generation to act in large enough numbers and for such an extended period of time so as to get us the long-lasting reforms that are needed. You want to motivate people? Become a revolutionary. You can win your reforms and much more too!

Social democracy has failed over and over again. Those are just a few of the many reasons to call yourself a revolutionary and win others to the movement for total human liberation. So, my question is, if you’d like the entire world, why demand just the table scraps?