History behind the term The terms Reform or Revolution is first introduced as the title of a pamphlet written by Rosa

Luxemburg in 1900. It was published to confront the revisionist ideology beginning to emerge in Europe shortly after the internal conflicts amongst Marxists at the Second International.1 Between 1896-98, Bernstein wrote a series of articles on the "Problems of Socialism" and later a book. Luxemburg's response was published in full in the 1908 pamphlet Reform or Revolution. Luxemburg sets the record straight in the first paragraph: "Can we oppose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, its final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. "The practical daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class struggle and working in the direction of the final goal--the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage labor. For Socialist Democracy, there is an indissoluble tie between social reforms and revolution. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its goal." The people who defined Revolutionaries want to overthrow the government. They want to get rid of existing economic, political and social relations and create new ones. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are enemies. Reformists want radical changes too. Unlike revolutionaries, however, they accept with the basic structure of the system: the Constitution, Congress, parliament, democracy, and so on. They are willing to work with establishment liberals and the Democratic Party. People can see the reform-vs.-revolution split whenever Occupiers discuss actions and demands. Reformists say: Let's move our accounts from banks to credit unions. Encourage Black Friday shoppers to buy from locally-owned businesses. Demand that Congress pass a constitutional amendment abolishing corporate personhood. Restore the Glass-Steagall Act. Revolution frightens the reformists. They worry about chaos, violence and dislocation. They're
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Reform_or_Revolution

right to be concerned. Bad as things are now, these might look like the good old days after buildings begin burning. Revolutionaries point to the history of previous reform movements. Sure, progressives win victories during times of social unrest: concessions to labor during the early 1900s, the New Deal of the 1930s, the civil rights, antiwar and social movements of the 1960s. But they don't stick. As soon as the crowds of demonstrators go home--since the 1980s, right-wingers roll back the results of those hard-won battles while liberals stand aside. Democrats like Clinton and Obama even roll back welfare, worker rights, environmental regulations and privacy rights. If you want radical change to last, revolutionaries argue, you have to change everything when you have the chance. Reformers see the system as broken and in need of repair. For revolutionaries, whether or not the system can be fixed is beside the point. The system itself is the problem. Revolutionaries don't believe that corporations, unfairness, inequality and violent monstrosities such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq have corrupted an otherwise laudable system. They think the system is inherently unfair, corrupt and violent; that unfairness, corruption and violence are the system. Revolutionary thinking wants change right now. It is concerned with the overthrow of existing structures and their replacement. The new structures that revolutionary thinking swaps in for the old structures are often very flimsy. Revolutionary thinking is driven by passion and reaction. It is not usually well thought out. It's impatience with the status quo doesn't allow its ideas to mature and refine. Reformational thinking looks long term. Rather than seeking to merely overthrow the existing structures in the short term, it quietly builds foundations for new structures which will overtake the old structures in the long term. Although it has a reactive element to it, it is patient and takes its time maturing and refining its ideas. It takes the time necessary to communicate and educate its own and future generations. Thus, like a cathedral, it may take hundreds of years to build, but once built, it is solid.

Revolution versus Reformation Like the great antithesis2 between the city of God and the city of man, the antithesis between revolution and reformation is altogether unbridgeable. It defines and distinguishes irreconcilable differences. It pits one total and exclusive worldview over and against another. It discerns the stark contrast between black and white with no hint of grey between. Like the way to perdition, the road to revolution is wide, and many are those who travel it. It is little wonder then that men and nations actually prefer revolution to reformation. After all, the broad road promises easy and efficient going. The narrow road promises only a long obedience in the same direction. The broad road advertises quick results, spectacular sights, and razzle-dazzle publicity. Whereas the narrow way offers only small beginnings, quiet faithfulness, and a humble reputation. The way of revolution practically guarantees health, wealth, and wow. The way of reformation only bears witness to faith, hope, and love. Revolution demands the hard and unrelenting science of charts and graphs, programs and policies. Reformation is content with the gentle persuasions of doctrine and liturgy, covenant and sacrament. Revolution has big plans, amalgamating fervor, and gargantuan purposes. Reformation has but diligence and steadfastness in the face of daily responsibilities. Revolution is undeterred by the facts; reformation is undeterred by the obstacles. Revolution, like the passing pleasures of sin, never fails to disappoint; reformation, like love, never fails. Alas, the contrast between the two, revolution and reformation, is as stark within the church as without. Indeed, the revolutionary mind is as prevalent in the church as it is anywhere else in the world. The political power of society Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution. Of course, no internal change is possible without external manifestations. The internal changes denoted by the revolution or evolution of the lizard into the eagle go accompanied with external marks. So with society. And therein lies
2

Antithesis is a counter-proposition and denotes a direct contrast to the original proposition. In setting the opposite, an individual brings out a contrast in the meaning (e.g., the definition, interpretation, or semantics) by an obvious contrast in the expression.

one of the pitfalls into which dilettantism or reforms invariably tumble. They have noticed that externals change with internals; and they rest satisfied with mere external changes, without looking behind the curtain. But of this more presently. There is some quotes from the Socialists: We Socialists are not reformers; we are revolutionists. We Socialists do not propose to change forms. We care nothing for forms. We want a change of the inside of the mechanism of society, let the form take care of itself. We see in England a crowned monarch; we see in Germany a sceptered emperor; we see in this country an uncrowned president, and we fail to see the essential difference between Germany, England or America. That being the case, we are skeptics as to forms. We are like grown children, in the sense that we like to look at the inside of things and find out what is there.3 The terms with connection to the ethics in politics In the sense of politics, with such implementation of norm and ethics, both reformation and revolution received its self benefits and significances. But not at every single condition that happens throughout the world, it depends on the phenomenon of how the political approach is practiced to the citizenship by the government itself. For example, in Egypt where the revolution of the citizens against the ready-government on 2011 was purely because of the systems and how the government manage to oppress their people using unlimited power and supremacy. Thousands of Egyptian was brought to death, merely millions of them were imprisoned for conviction of nothing and yet never been proved empirically. Most prisoners were tend to be tortured for such reason that they want to overthrow the brutal government. All the systems have been corrupted, exploitation and monopoly goes everywhere by empowered people, while the citizens received such horrible life of being oppressed. Thus for such particular condition, with cruelty leadership of the government, and corruption everywhere, people do not have any option to counter the problematic situation. To bring back the peaceful and justice routine of life, they have to make revolution. There is no need of reformation as for sure they have made such many attempts of reformation, but yet in the end, people were killed and imprisoned.
3

http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/deleon.html

Of such ethics implementation to be refined, revolution must first introduced by a leader that receives majority beliefs that he proved to make changes and proved with clean record of any corruption. The leader must have the power and specialty of influencing the people with their attitude, sacrifice and efforts. Historically reference to the the revolution of Egypt on 2011, for instance, led by the Muslims and the leaders even has the background of being imprisoned and tortured by the government police. Revolutionaries come out with an idea that must be practical, and of course it requires a big sacrifice. They are not tend to fight against people at the same level of them, but indeed they are facing the authority; which probably armed forces, militaries and assassins. So as a reality, revolutionaries must know that some of them might be killed, tortured and imprisoned. Not to even forget that revolutionaries must present to the public with more diplomatic approach as to influence the public to make solidarity. Such attempt of violence must be avoided unless it is necessary which only means to be considered as if and only if they are being attacked and brutally oppressed by the authorities. Yet if the revolutionaries neglect the more diplomatic procedure, the public might evaluate that they are no difference between them and the oppressor. They afraid that if the revolution is succeeded one time, when the revolutionaries overtaking the government, they keep using the same way of the previous corrupted government. Unlike the revolutionaries, the reformists must have their own way to present ethically to make changes to the political systems. At first they are recognizable as people that accept the systems, only that they against the government that make corruption to the systems for their personal and cronism interests. They have their own way to express their protests against the corruption. For Malaysia reformation on 1998 for instance, the reformists use road to express their protests against the corruption. They gather thousands on the road, or so called demonstration, and express their disagreement towards Barisan Nasional government which are corrupted for practicing cronism and monopoly. At first, the reformists must know that what they are fighting of is the corruption in implementation of the readily systems. They cannot against the systems. The systems have to be purified from any corruption and manipulation. Thus, indeed the best way of reformation is to overgo the most diplomatic way of overthrow the government which is by through the election. They must never put themselves practicing radical approach and attempts. As the government

practicing hipocrisy, yet not the terrors and kills, the reformists must stick to their diplomatic war against the government. Reformation requires a long term of efforts. The result might somehow achieved for the next 20 years, somehow shorter than that. Thus, reformists must never give up of explain their ideas to the public throughout many ways such as medias and intellectual discourses. The needs of patience is crucial and important. Actually the reformation is something to do with the changes on how the generation thinks. The eye might want to see the changes blue handed, but the most important is shaping the way of thinking of the citizens on how they evaluate the corruption of the system and how to react with the respective situation. The process of reformation is somehow complicated compared to revolution. The idea must always telly to the purification of the systems, not to against the systems. As for example, the idea of islamization of country by the reformists of a political party in Malaysia, Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) have to be parallel with the idea of democracy that the Malaysias Constitution already implemented previously. PAS have to make efforts to receive supports from public about the idea of Islamic country without manipulate the stated definition of democracy. Fortunately, the citizens nowadays regardless of races and religions accepted the idea of Islamic country throughout the redefinition by PAS which is the Welfare State. Ethically, according to further research and surveys proved that the reformation takes more significances and advantages compared to revolution. The previous history shows that peoples preferences of a better change in their life and fight against corruption may better be expressed throughout reformation. Reformation not only consider on changes physically, but it also consider the changes intellectually and spiritually. The idea of freedom must be expressed harmonically to avoid any innocence killing, unnecessary sacrifice and long-term regeneration of civilization.

References

1. Reformation to Revolution: Politics and Religion in Early Modern England, Margo Todd,

1995, Routledge
2. The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized, Brad S.

Gregory, 2012, Harvard College