Are you ever going to admit that you're wrong that you can turn incrementalism into a movement when rich ghouls can just buy influence? I mean do you just have faith that capitalism can be redeemed and made compatible with democracy?

See this is what I'm talking about.

• Incrementalism
• Influence
• Movement

If you were a serious person you wouldn't talk in vague buzzwords. You'd define what you meant. But the enduring problem with you revolutionaries is that as soon as you start defining what you mean, you start to eat each other. You have to say ACAB because if you wrote actual criminal justice reform you'd have no allies. Every progressive is the smartest in the room, and they can't compromise or let someone else get the glory.

You all just sit around and complain about the DNC and say "**** it I hope Trump wins, that'll teach 'em to not do exactly what I wanted."

Then there was that antivaxxer thing.

Then that time you said black people are genetically inferior.

And also that time when you said women who wear make up should expect sexual harassment.

Nice strawman temper tantrum.

Since when did incrementalism become a buzzword?

About the time Bernie lost the nom in 2016. What is incrementalism? Was the ACA incremental? What about the JCPOA? Was DACA incremental?

And if they are, explain to me how you get anything bigger through in one Congress. Other than your moonshot hypothetical "movement."

If you're going to call me a neoliberal, you should have the balls to acknowledge that I don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

It's not a vague term at all. Yes, all of those were incremental. Maybe even less than incremental.

Obviously it'd be by voting for people that actually want to change the status quo rather than voting for the status quo.

I never called you a neoliberal. If I remember right, Batlord called you a centrist.

Incrementalism = small wins meant to give relief to small groups of people while under the assumption that radical change is impossible.

Influence = ... influence.

Movement = group with influence.

It's not really that hard to parse and my greater question was easy enough to understand by anyone who doesn't secretly know but never admit to themselves that it's a losing battle fighting the wealthy with political small arms fire because they have more money than you to buy "influence" with the political parties full of other wealthy people.

And I do not sit around and hope Trump wins. I hope he gets lynched. The only path forward I can see that doesn't involve violent revolution that will probably end up a hellscape is radicalized labor organizing that understands that just fitting itself into a capitalist infrastructure is doomed to failure because capitalism is class warfare against the working class and so the working class trying to make friends with it will only lead to the destruction or assimilation of organized labor.

But that's a tall ****ing order that's hard to take any solace in when the right controls the narrative and the center leftists still pretend that they're engaged in a cooperative venture with the right and not enemies.

Love how when Big3 doesn't understand a word it's the other person's fault.

I think the ACA actually serves better in proving Batlord's point.

It was hardly even a budge in the right direction. The pandemic has done more to influence people towards free healthcare than the ACA ever did.

Ja that's a head scratcher. Kind of a textbook example of how good policy can evolve into an empty bureaucratic gesture in the name of compromise and pragmatism.