For each of the primary sources provided explain why reform would NOT result in equality. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/i.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1909/social-basis.htm

In What Is To Be Done? Lenin vigorously attacks those within the socialist movement who strive for what he calls "freedom of criticism" of Marxism's revolutionary aims. Critics such as Eduard Bernstein wanted to modify and soften Marx's theories. They argued that socialist reforms could come without violent revolution. They wanted to pursue the gradual reform of capitalism through peaceful changes to the existing system.
To Lenin, this reformism would not lead to the equality the working classes aimed for under socialism. In fact, it would play into the hands of the enemy bourgeoisie by radically watering down socialism. It would turn socialism from the total overthrow of a corrupt capitalist system into a weak trade union movement that would become merely an "appendage" of bourgeois liberalism. Reformism would fatally compromise socialism because of its denial of a fundamental Marxist principle: that working class interests are the complete opposite of bourgeois interests. To advocate working with the enemy would demoralize and undermine the whole movement. As Lenin put it,

But an essential condition for such an alliance must be the full opportunity for the socialists to reveal to the working class that its interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie. However, the Bernsteinian and “critical” trend, to which the majority of the legal Marxists turned, deprived the socialists of this opportunity and demoralised the socialist consciousness by vulgarising Marxism, by advocating the theory of the blunting of social contradictions, by declaring the idea of the social revolution and of the dictatorship of the proletariat to be absurd, by reducing the working-class movement and the class struggle to narrow trade-unionism and to a “realistic” struggle for petty, gradual reforms. This was synonymous with bourgeois democracy’s denial of socialism’s right to independence and, consequently, of its right to existence; in practice it meant a striving to convert the nascent working-class movement into an appendage of the liberals.

Lenin very strongly asserted that workers would get nowhere—would not achieve the equality of a classless society—unless they rejected compromise and the old, worn-out idea that they could work with the very group out to destroy them. The only way to win a real victory over a "monster" (the bourgeoisie) was by holding firm to fundamental Marxist principles. Lenin wrote the following:

If you must unite, Marx wrote to the party leaders, then enter into agreements to satisfy the practical aims of the movement, but do not allow any bargaining over principles, do not make theoretical “concessions”. This was Marx’s idea, and yet there are people among us who seek-in his name to belittle the significance of theory!
Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.

Lenin reiterated a common refrain of his time: communists were fearful from past experience that the upper classes would offer compromise as a way to trap and destroy the socialist movement
In The Social Basis of the Woman Question, Alexandra Kollontai critiques the idea that working-class women can achieve equality by allying themselves with feminists. She defines the feminists as bourgeois women whose class interests are diametrically opposed to those of working-class women. She argues that once bourgeois women achieve the equality they desire, they will unite with bourgeois men to throw working-class women under the bus. As Kollontai puts it,

The feminists seek equality in the framework of the existing class society, in no way do they attack the basis of this society. They fight for prerogatives for themselves, without challenging the existing prerogatives and privileges.

She also says the following:

Once the barrier is down and the bourgeois women have received access to political activity, the recent defenders of the “rights of all women” become enthusiastic defenders of the privileges of their class, content to leave the younger sisters with no rights at all.

Further, "reforms" of the current capitalist system to give women more rights cannot work, for the system itself is corrupt. For example, giving women more sexual freedom will only mean that men will more fully exploit them sexually. The only way for women to truly gain equality is through a complete upheaval and transformation of the system into socialism. As long as a class system exists, women cannot truly be united, for class will divide them. The divide is not between men and women but between the classes:

A woman can possess equal rights and be truly free only in a world of socialised labour, of harmony and justice. . . . But each new concession won by the bourgeois woman would give her yet another weapon for the exploitation of her younger sister and would go on increasing the division between the women of the two opposite social camps.
A colossal upheaval of the entire social and economic structure was required before women could begin to retrieve the significance and independence they had lost.

Lenin and Kollantai are united in the view that no real equality can be won for the working classes through alliance or compromise with the existing bourgeois system. To do so would prove disastrous. It plays into enemy hands and is a betrayal of socialism. "Reform" will not work. Only revolutionary change will bring about equality.