Non-reformist Reforms

Author David Camfield, whose latest book is Future on Fire: Capitalism and the Politics of Climate Change, is one of the few who openly shares my view of "non-reformist reforms". Many of those in activist circles perform ridiculous contortions trying to decide what these are in actuallity. Camfield says: "The way that I think about it is that more important than the demands themselves are the methods of action that people engage in order to achieve them. I guess this brings up the idea that people often talk about, of non-reformist reforms. And I’m skeptical that such a thing exists. We can assess the different reform demands brought forward, but I don’t think there’s any reform that is inherently non-reformist. I don’t think that’s a problem. It was Rosa Luxemburg who said that the social revolution is the goal and the struggle for reforms is the means to that end. That’s the way I think about it. The question really is: What can we do that will try to get large numbers of people into motion around demands?" As he points out, every reform runs into the problem of legitimizing the system and diffusing the rage that prompts direct action. If your demand is radical ( nationalize fossil fuel industry) but you wish to achieve it by petitioning the government or voting harder, you are sending the message that capitalist "democracy" works just fine. No need for revolution. Just lobby those in power. This disconnect only serves to nuetralize movements seeking total system overhaul. I'm going to read Camfield's book and see what other insights he may have but this is a good start.