"Incremental change" is a Third Way lie.

[F4lconF16]

59. I do, actually.

There is no way--just, flat out, no way--that any Republican controlled state legislatures will ever pass a constitutional amendment. I think that is impossible. The pressures on our system would cause a revolution (not necessarily one I would support or one that would be successful) before that happened.

Second, have I ever said that electing a president would change everything? I have not, and I think that I have said the opposite explicitly. As a matter of fact, I made multiple posts earlier today expressing surprise at the idea that Obama would do much but support anti-working class policy proposals when he was under pressure from large corporations and his financial backers. The presidency is certainly not the be-all end-all of US politics. Actually, I have quite a few concerns about Sanders, echoed nicely by this post:

I have been overwhelmed by the support for Bernie here ~ make no mistake ~ he is not a revolutionary. In fact I have serious qualms about trying to elect someone who could very well be the next FDR. Yes, some see that as a huge plus but I can't help but have mixed feelings because it will only drag on this farce that is capitalism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10248289#post4

Sanders worries me because of his serious potential to deradicalize the left. The absolute last thing we need is the loss of what movement we are seeing right now. Already, the Democratic Party is doing its best to appropriate the Black Lives Matter movement. That is NOT a good thing--we are already hearing the conversation begin to be limited in the usual method--restricted to debates between two parties that will do nigh-on everything to hold the source of their power. The debate has already been shifted to include, for the first time in many years, a serious discussion about the nature of capitalism. That is something I do not want to see lost.

I see frustration about what they describe as a recent sell out by the party to "corporations," which I see as reflective of the fact they have only recently been effected by the inherently unequal and exploitative nature of capitalism.

I think you're dead on about this. These are not new problems--we can trace them back easily to the 1800s, and even earlier, I think.

Now here is where I find your ideas quite interesting: how do you propose to work locally for change for workers rights, min wage, etc.? I don't believe that can be initiated successfully through a party that has historically resisted said changes, to the point of outright denying them in some cases. Attempting to work up the chain step-by-step is a losing proposition--there is too much opposition, and it takes too much time to maintain a strong base of support. I believe in the power of direct action and constant agitation by radical leftists outside of the party system. I have yet to see a good example of a major change happening because the Democratic Party initiated it--almost always, they have been forced to do so by outside pressures. LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement is an excellent example, and I'm going to assume you know that history better than I do.

It is extremely hard to enact changes at the national level--this is why almost all of my efforts are focused locally. However, these efforts are not meant to work our way up through the various levels of state and national legislative bodies, but instead are meant to catalyze a reaction using already present elements of tension in society. The BLM movement is another great example: it capitalizes on already present tensions on a local scale with results that echo on a national scale, much like the Civil Rights Movement did. That has a far greater chance at affecting change nationally, in my opinion.

Again, it is unfortunate you have missed some of the discussions. Often they are not OPs, but sub-threads, and I can see how it would be easy not to see them. I think also your comments and their comments to you often antagonize each other, intended or not. That may have blinded you to the fruitful discussions occurring comment by comment elsewhere, and I don't mean that as a slight against you. It is hard to sift through the general crapfest that is GD without missing quite a bit. I will read through a thread and come back later, and the entire dynamic will have changed. It is an interesting place, DU.

As for working within or without the system, I thought we had discussed this before. I feel like I remember you being more interested in system reform for eventual system change, rather than radical action for more immediate and direct pressure for system change, be it revolutionary or not (though my politics certainly are). I apologize if I mischaracterized what you may or may not have said--my memory is failing me.