So, in that event, is the idea to just hope that a revolution will break out instead?
Yeah, yeah organize too, but revolution is ultimately the desired final conclusion from said organizing, is it not?
Call me a doomer or whatever, but odds are that ain't gonna happen any time in the foreseeable future, things are gonna have to get way, waaayyy worse before it's even a realistic possibility imo.
Not to say organizing should be completely abandoned in favor of electoralism either, of course not, it just feels foolish to me to give up on either lane.
To me, it feels like the best course of action would be to pursue both at the same time until one or both leads to success. To increase our chances/odds by pursuing 2 avenues instead of putting all of our metaphorical eggs in one basket.
Basically I'm saying we should keep both options open instead of limiting our scope, and chances of success with it.
I guess you could say I'm a big-brained centrist on this issue.
Democrats can only do this because the left wing of the party is too small to matter. Of course you can steamroll a handful of Representatives when your party has 200+ seats in the House. But you can't steamroll 50 or 100. It's not that the Democratic Party has some magical ability to stop any sort of popular movement -- it's that the left is not yet popular enough to overcome their obstructionism.
The #1 goal for the left has to be getting more people on our side. We're not going anywhere until that happens. And it's unquestionable that a left-wing candidate in a Democratic primary (that people actually pay attention to) will do more to spread leftist ideas than some third party that most people won't give the time of day by default.