I can’t even imagine the depths of arrogance necessary to say this. You’re so convinced you’re right, so dogmatic in your belief that reformism is a realistic strategy, that your first response to a person doubting its possibility is to question their vocabulary. It’s almost funny.

Ok, I’m very sorry. I somehow read the comment as “To me, what’s utopic is reformism doing something, but sliding back to where it started” and that was clearly someone that didn’t know “utopic” means something that would be good if achievable. I’ve argued with a lot of people with vocabulary issues so I erroneously assumed the worst, my mistake.

The Chinese revolution achieved proletarian rule through the Mass Line.

That’s still not the Proletariat in charge. That’s one single person in power, which may or may not accept suggestions from the Proletariat filtered through his cadres who are all trained to follow his ideals. If the entire population decided Mao had to die, he still wouldn’t have killed himself. That’s not what “being in charge” means.

It’s aimed at it, but it will be woefully ineffective. Don’t get me wrong, if it’s proposed, I’d back it. I’m for the idea, not against it. But if you think the bourgeois state will allow a genuinely radical party into the system, you’re living in a dreamland.

It can’t be ineffective at bringing democracy. In that utopic hypothesis that a coup in the US actually happens and the new government is all on board with making RCV work, there’s nothing stopping democracy from doing its course.

But let’s not forget that this was all a gigantic what-if to explain what would have to happen to actually have an option that’s better than “vote for Least Bad Party”, I don’t think it’s feasible either.

You have no self-proclaimed religion because it would take your religion’s place, and that won’t be allowed