One thing that I think at least is interesting and instructive, is in rare places where the democrats don't hold a monopoly on social democracy - like for instance Burlington, Vermont. There, the democrats pretty openly take the role of the conservatives and the progressive party takes the role of the social democrats. To your point, the progressives are on the wrong side of the revolution as well. With that outlook, which I think is correct, all electoral politics are on the wrong side of the revolution, and you see it (electoralism) for the dead end that it is.
At the national level, that is true.
One thing that I think at least is interesting and instructive, is in rare places where the democrats don't hold a monopoly on social democracy - like for instance Burlington, Vermont. There, the democrats pretty openly take the role of the conservatives and the progressive party takes the role of the social democrats. To your point, the progressives are on the wrong side of the revolution as well. With that outlook, which I think is correct, all electoral politics are on the wrong side of the revolution, and you see it (electoralism) for the dead end that it is.