this isn't a path to power. the problem isn't the compromises, it's who you're compromising with. we will need to make compromises to take power - no arguments there. but our power does not derive from the bourgeoisie and power within the bourgeois state only comes with their consent. so these compromises with a bourgeois political party can at best result in things that the ruling class is capable and willing to compromise on. willing is an important word there - it doesn't matter how many compromises you make before you have leverage. if they profit more by just ignoring you, symbolically appeasing you, or threatening you in the backroom, they'll just do that.
so this isn't a path to power, even if you do want a social democratic state (you shouldn't, but that's a separate argument), because it's putting things in the wrong order. compromises only matter when you're at the negotiating table and AOC/Sanders/whoever else are emphatically not there.
this isn't a path to power. the problem isn't the compromises, it's who you're compromising with. we will need to make compromises to take power - no arguments there. but our power does not derive from the bourgeoisie and power within the bourgeois state only comes with their consent. so these compromises with a bourgeois political party can at best result in things that the ruling class is capable and willing to compromise on. willing is an important word there - it doesn't matter how many compromises you make before you have leverage. if they profit more by just ignoring you, symbolically appeasing you, or threatening you in the backroom, they'll just do that.
so this isn't a path to power, even if you do want a social democratic state (you shouldn't, but that's a separate argument), because it's putting things in the wrong order. compromises only matter when you're at the negotiating table and AOC/Sanders/whoever else are emphatically not there.