#electoralism

A worker who isn't one medical emergency (or less than that) away from homelessness, or who works 35 hours instead of 60, actually has the time, energy, and mental bandwidth to attend union meetings, study theory, and organize their community.

Abstract arguments about socialist theory rarely convince people on their own. Seeing a mass movement force real concessions from the ruling class proves that organized workers can win something.

When workers win a major reform, the capitalist class often fights back through capital strikes, inflation, or political sabotage. Experiencing that resistance firsthand teaches workers why capitalism itself must eventually be transcended far more effectively than any pamphlet. They see that capitalism opposes their livelihoods beyond all morality and that it will sabotage any effort in the name of its goals.

The reason some radicals remain cautious about this model isn't because they want workers to stay miserable. History shows a recurring trap when electoral politics becomes the primary driver of a movement, namely the institutional wall.

When progressive leaders win power inside a capitalist state, they inevitably face a choice when the ruling class retaliates (through market pressure, legal roadblocks, or party leadership discipline)

Either break with the capitalist system entirely (which requires an independent, armed/organized mass movement backing them from outside the state) or manage the system and enforce compromises to maintain stability and stay in office (the more likely outcome).

History contains sobering examples, such as the Syriza party in Greece, which was elected on an anti-austerity platform with immense popular enthusiasm, but ended up enforcing European Union austerity measures when faced with total financial blockade. Radicals worry that without independent working-class power outside parliament, even the best-intentioned leaders will eventually be forced to administer the very system they set out to transform.

French philosopher André Gorz coined the term "non-reformist reforms" (or structural reforms) to bridge this exact divide.

A Standard Reform consists of a modification that makes the existing system run more smoothly without changing who holds real power (e.g., a tax credit or a minor regulatory tweak). A Non-Reformist Reform consists of a demand that shifts actual decision-making power into the hands of the working class and cannot easily be re-absorbed by capitalism (e.g., universal public housing, democratic worker control over production, or complete de-commodification of healthcare).

Whether President Ocasio-Cortez or Senator El-Sayed becomes a stepping stone to revolution or a dead end comes down to one factor: Is the movement building independent working-class institutions like strong unions, tenant councils, and community defense networks that can stand on their own if those leaders fail or are forced to compromise?

When greater evil is in power, what do you do to fight it (aside from promoting lesser evil)?

When lesser evil is in power, do you do anything at all to fight it?

If you feel that you have no choice but to vote for one evil in order to prevent a greater evil from taking or maintaining power, you've got a long battle against evil ahead of you, no matter the results of the vote.

Oh, IDK. You could start by primary-ing these fools with progressive candidates.

And when you've realized why that doesn't work, you can move on to trying to build up a third party, like the Greens or something.

And when you've realized why that doesn't work, you can become an anarchist.

And when you've realized why that doesn't work, you can become a communist.