The nature of the methodology through which liberation will be found has been a topic of debate across numerous ideologies since the beginning of what can constitute as an ideology was first conceived. And generally, these two methodologies fall under two schools of thought; reform or revolution. Both ideals (in their extremes) can be seen, promptly, as foolish idealism. Reform refers to the process through which systematic change can occur- that being working through the existing systems in order to bring about the desired change. This idea finds many flaws within it, as these reforms may easily be co-opted by the very systems we wish to change, and thus falls into the trap of false consciousness (as theorized by Karl Marx) or become dead on the runway (as theorized by Rosa Luxembourg). On the other hand, however, we find that (total) revolution as well falls fruitless, referring to the total upheaval of the existing socio-economic order in favour of the desired one. Although yielding more permanent results, we find that it regularly concludes in authoritarianism (see the failure of the communist parties in Russia, China, Korea, Cambodia, and countless others across the world), and although there are those which are more moderate (as in, built existing structures prior to upheaval), the line is thin between the two examples and are built upon strategy- something which can easily be failed.
If, then, neither reform nor revolution are reliable and viable methods to bring about a desired change, then what system exists in order to achieve it? That answer is simple; Replacement. Replacement refers to the idea of creating and implementing systems outside of the traditional socio-economic systems (see Kropotkin’s work on Mutual Aid, or Ocalan’s work on Democratic Confederalism), which will then serve as the basis from which revolution will come. Providing the core foundational tenets of the post-revolutionary society, reducing and diminishing the needs for the vanguard party to continue governance after the existing state has fallen (which is the case in traditional Marxist and Leninist thought). If, instead, however that the vanguard party installs these systems (rather than governs them) prior to the revolutionary upheaval of the State and Capitalist apparatus, then it should be theorized that the people will be more than capable to govern themselves afterwards. In fact, this is quite similar to the methodology from which capitalism gained its authority; It installed itself through smaller systems prior to bringing about a revolution to make itself the default state of a society.
Furthermore this methodology answers an essential question in the realization of a stateless, moneyless, classless society; through which mechanism does the people recognize their role? It should be evident that the answer, on the surface, is simple. After the cultural change, people will be able to innately view it as clearly as they can view exchange-value and use-value under the capitalist system. But how may that cultural change occur? In nearly all answers – be it anarchist or authoritarian – the basis of it relies on a proposition that (through no fault of their own) has been repeatedly proven false, yet repeatedly parroted due to the constantly shifting conditions that effect the working class. The anarchists propose that humans innately understand their role; and that the removal of the capitalist system is the catalyst which will allow them to realize it. This is false, as it neglects the understanding of the capitalist conditioning in the reproduction of its ideology. The authoritarians propose that humans require re-education; that only through government programs after control is taken that the people can realize their role in society. This is false, as it creates a new class system that finds itself no more moral than capitalism itself.
A question does, or rather should, come to mind upon this description; How is it that reform is vulnerable to co-optation and appropriation, while this supposedly ‘superior’ system (being replacement) is immune to it? And that question has a simple answer; Being that replacement has a revolutionary end, which prevents co-optation and encourages instead confrontation, meaning it is treated as a revolution by the ruling class rather than reform. We can already see this fact in the United States very clearly; Non-Government Organizations which fulfil functions the government neglects are treated as dangerous, and the government in turn attempts to implement their own formations of it. This is good; As it provides a direct comparison between the vanguard party and the State it belongs to, permitting for propaganda that produces more supporters for the cause and the exposure of contradictions in the State’s manifestation of those systems. But one fact about replacement should always remain; replacement must end with revolution. Without that final leap to purge the remnants of the broken system, without the threat of revolution- all systems that the vanguard party installs can become co-opted or neutered into vessels for false-consciousness.