[WS:] But we know from history that getting rid of one elite creates a vacuum that is quickly filled with a new one, of the revolutionary provenance. Revolutions tend to eat their own children.
The problem that underlies the revolutionary discourse, by which I mean getting rid of elites to get rid of social problems, is insufficient understanding of the basic social fact that elites are created by situations under any circumstances. Getting rid of entrenched elites may - but does not have to be -necessary for a social change, but that is not a sufficient condition for preventing the emergence of new ones. What is needed is a certain social order that creates checks and balances that inhibit, if not altogether prevent the formation of elites. Unfortunately, by destroying the existing social order revolutions tend to create fertile ground for the emergence of new elites. Trotsky was aware of this when he talked about the creation of a new working class "civil society" - a sentiment echoes by his friend Gramsci.
With that in mind, meaningful reforms create a much better potential for inhibiting the formation of elites than revolutions do. It is so, because social order is basically preserved during reforms and that can create basis for norms and rules of behavior that may inhibit elites. Of course, it does not mean that such rules and norms will emerge, but at least they have a chance. Revolutions, where to quote Mao, powers grows from the barrel of a gun, give no such chance.
It is interesting to observe that Scandinavian countries that have never experienced a revolution have one of the most egalitarian society on this planet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GINIretouchedcolors.png. By contrast, countries that emerged from revolutions, be it the US or the USSR eventually developed astonishing levels of social inequality and elite hegemony despite egalitarian rhetoric justifying these revolutions.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
