Here’s a problem: reformists end up playing by oppressor’s rules, forming factions, and marginalizing minorities; revolutionaries become zealots who need to convert an army before they get anything done.

Here’s the underlying problem: change is slow, because people change slowly. Reformists want change that requires the consent of the very people responsible for why things are the way they are now. This means they have to change minds, and that happens only little by little. So reform happens only little by little. Revolutionaries, on the other hand, work outside the system, which means they need to have a significant power base before they can challenge the system. This means they have to change minds, and that happens only little by little. So revolution is only possible in extreme situations where people are suddenly drawn en masse to radical means.

Here’s what we have in the United States: a situation too oppressive to abide, yet not so tyrannical that it incites riots. So the reformists try to mitigate the damage, and the revolutionaries waste their time protesting party conventions. It’s a stalemate.

Abandonism offers a solution. Reform and revolution both involve convincing other people that they should do what you want them to do. Abandonism involves finding people who already want what you want, and implementing it directly on a scale proportional to your constituency. The job of the abandonist is not to convince people that they have unforeseen needs, but to use local resources to meet preexistent local needs. Large institutions are bad at meeting local needs. Abandonists develop vernacular structures as alternatives to institutions. By turning the the vernacular, we can circumvent oppressive institutions, the result of which is a renegotiation of power gives us more control over our lives. And we can do it without being zealots, because results will speak louder than ideological appeal.