If you’re in the majority, you have the votes to be able to accomplish something with reform. It’s not like we live in a monarchy, reform is possible under our system.
If reform isn’t working to bring about your goals, either your goals aren’t popular enough, or they are popular but the people lack the will and organization to vote for them.
If the people lack the will and organization to vote effectively, they certainly lack the will and organization to topple the government.
My area of expertise is managing complex systems and change implementation. I sincerely don’t understand how revolution is supposed to work where reform doesn’t. No one has been able to give me an answer that doesn’t bill down to idealistic hope. How is this revolution supposed to be implemented, and why can’t we build the foundation for revolution while simultaneously using the tools we have for reform? Wouldn’t widespread support for reform be the best possible proof of consensus?
In several countries we actually saw this happen: Sukarno in Indonesia, Allende in Chile, Lumumba in DRC, etc.
What happens is, under our system, the United States will come and fucking kill you for daring to attempt things like land reforms and then install a dictatorship to commit mass torture and murder and worse.
So maybe, after the hegemon collapses, it might actually be possible to reform our way to communism. Unfortunately under our system the empire exists and it is hungry.