I think it's very easy to convince an educated liberal of the material benefits of progressive, if not transitional or revolutionary policies such as public and democratic control of industry. The obstacle these people can't get past is the question of their feasibility. Even the most carefully-crafted and scientifically-devised revolutionary Marxist program for such a person will at first glance appear to be every bit as utopian as the most ultraleft anarchist/radlib political demands.

A well-meaning educated liberal technocrat might say something to the effect of:

"This policy would have the intended effect of [insert one of: lowering poverty/income inequality; improving living standards/human happiness; lowering GHG emissions/output of pollutant particulates; improving scientific/tech development; undoing quantifiably observable racist/sexist/etc. outcomes; and so on]. BUT [and it's a very big but] it's not [one of politically/economically feasible], at least not so quickly or immediately. Progressive Democrats [or insert center-left/social-democratic party here] are doing their best to do what's possible; compromise with reactionaries and corporate interests is unavoidable."

The problem a good conscientious educated progressive has, is that their ability to conceive of what's possible is bounded by capitalist realism. For this person it's not a matter of whether should XYZ be done, but whether it can be done. And if we suppose this person is familiar with the history of attempted socialist and communist revolutions, they will immediately cite the inevitable capitalist retaliation (capital flight; trade sanctions; reactionary coups/counterrevolutions) as an inevitable result of trying to accomplish policies outside of what capitalists will allow.

They might not realize it's the result of retaliation by international capitalists - they may understand that dispossessing capitalists or simply raising their taxes too high is an inevitable recipe for poverty - but may have been taught by some university economist that such poverty is a natural reaction to attempting socialist policies like expropriation of industry from private capitalist ownership, every bit as natural as a Jenga tower collapsing under the force of gravity when the bottom pieces are removed. These people have to be shown that this is the result of human behavior rather than the "natural" forces of the market. They have to be able to figure out that capitalist wealth isn't all but fucking untouchable and completely out of reach.

Often this doesn't happen until immiseration happens to them, or if they're fortunate enough to directly observe their preconceived understanding of what's possible completely fall apart in front of their face, in the course of witnessing or participating in people's struggles, e.g. the BLM protests last year which brought the question of police defunding into the Overton window. A lot of bullshit-unlearning has got to happen, and bearing witness to hard-won partial successes resulting from active working-class struggle, especially that might have been previously inconceivable according to the prior model of what's "politically feasible", that can force such a person to at least begin to re-examine their (not entirely conscious) assumptions about what's economically or politically possible.