They refuse to campaign on popular policies even when it increases their chances of losing because it doing otherwise would anger their donors. They know it might cause them to lose. It’s purposeful. What else do you call that?

Oh come on. There are countless options you’re just ignoring between sitting through a city council meeting and a protracted people’s war. I even gave you examples of how progressive politics was advanced in the past. If you don’t want to learn the lessons of history then why should anyone listen to do? Are you actually that allergic to any sort of politics that inspires and mobilizes people? You can call anyone who wants to do more than sit in a city budget meeting a “tankie” and then pat yourself on the back all day, it won’t make your argument any less wrong. I mean seriously, the last meaningfully economic progressive policy was the creation of Medicare and Medicaid which happened in the 60’s and yet you’re acting like the decline started in the 2010s. But yeah sure, progressivism was doing so well during the Reagan and Bush eras. Lol

We cannot push this all at once, all we can do is nudge the needle back towards progressivism until it starts to choke capital.

That won’t work. When has it ever worked? Labor right were won through violent strikes often times involving shootouts with the police. Civil rights were won with mass public disobedience alongside the looming threat of violent confrontation. Dr. King derided the same comfortable liberals you seem to want to appeal to. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect incremental progress through compromise and insider politics when that’s never been an effective strategy.

Of course I don’t discount the reality that we are not in place where enough people are ready and willing to make the sacrifices necessary to put capital on the defense. That said, inequality is rising, living conditions are degrading, and the US government is becoming increasingly brazen about the ways in which it intends to sell out its own citizens to the highest bidder. The path of decline that we are on will create a mass of people with not much left to lose. That’s when there is real opportunity to organize people into something capable of turning the tide.

Basically we can prepare for that eventuality or we can have a blind faith in a handful of well intentioned yet painfully impotent elected officials. That’s not to say we should sit out elections but rather said elections need to be a tool for organizing disaffected people rather than a promise to change the system from the inside.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and oh look it replies like a duck too, forgive me for thinking it’s a duck. Maybe take your own advice and engage with my points instead of getting so needlessly defensive.

You’re arguing against a caricature of the left wing critiques levied at politicians like AOC or Mamdani. You’re ignoring how those actions, which are frankly not isolated, are indicative of a very different perspective and theory of change than many on the left have. Pretending that any other theory of change is actually just black and white moralism is an incredibly bad faith way to argue. Honestly, it’s just a ridiculous perspective to have when you would be hard pressed to find similar critiques levied at electeds like say Rashida Talib.

Well your argument sounds like ones I’ve heard 1000x over defending elected officials like AOC whenever they do something like vote to fund Israel’s iron dome or forcibly stop a railway strike. The problem is, trading favors and votes is the kind of game that only works when you have a network of wealthy benefactors. If you think that these types of compromises are necessary, it likely means that you have some degree of blind faith in the American political system.

This just reads like a bad faith interpretation of anyone on the left who might have ideological differences between themselves and Mamdani. That doesn’t mean they aren’t pragmatic. For example, if you believe that our current government cannot be reformed then compromise with the right wing is often the least pragmatic way to bring about change. Pretending that this means you’re making perfect the enemy of the good either means you’re being disingenuous or you just don’t understand the perspective you’re critiquing.

This person has swallowed so much red scare nonsense it’s impossible to actually engage with them on this topic.