like, how do you really approach the average american and just like, empathetically convey that they need to raze this fucking barn
i mean especially the groups out there who historically had some level of buy-in to the system and are in denial about their exclusion - like what is the metaphorical eye-piece nada can force onto their eyes to see the basic truth: we gonna have to do something unpleasant to change this sitch
Attack the idea that America is a democracy. If America isn't a democracy, it can't be reformed through democratic means.
Start with the obvious things, like the electoral college, misapportioning of senators(1 voter in Wyoming has the same representation in Senate as 59 people in California), the two party system. The power of money, lobbying, etc. Talk about the ideas that have long had broad support, but aren't being dealt with, taxing the rich and big corporations, like modest gun reforms, dealing with political corruption, codifying roe v wade, etc.
Edit: You won't get there in one discussion, but you can plant the seed.
You're not going to be able to convince someone in a single conversation. You must first plant the seed of doubt in their mind.
Get them into an organization, politically educate them, and let them observe the outcomes of their attempts to take action against the system. Make them be honest and critical about what is accomplished. Basically, I think the major contributors are inexperience, unfamiliarity with history and theory, and not testing their ideas honestly (they are idealistic).
Takes very long, but it might be the only reliable way. Plus comes with the risk of making people completely give up
Yeah it's a lot of work but if done right it can really snowball (an irg of 15 can do a ton more than an org of 3). And giving up can even be a better outcome than funneling energy into bourgeois electoralism. They'll have stopped doing a negative thing and might still be leverages to do political education.
The chronic crisis of American democracy: the way is shut by Benjamin Studebaker goes in depth on how every political movement from Bernie to Trump is structurally incapable of making any meaningful positive reforms to the American system. The book is also a bit cynical on the efficacy of revolution but if you want to convince someone that the system is unsalvageable this is the book for you
Selling the idea of literally destorying the current state of society is hard. I'd be interested to know too.
A good seed you can plant is by pointing out that in all the countries that "followed our example" by moving from monarchy to democracy basically nobody did it like we did it. Even the countries the USA had complete control over like Japan after WW2. Nobody looks at our broken-as-shit system and says "heck yeah let's do it that way!" Other systems and governments are rife with counter-democratic structures and corruptions unique to their own situations of course, but the whole world had our system as a possible inspiration and said "ehhh not like that." That refusal has happened hundreds of times in hundreds of countries.
Start by chipping away at the parts of American exceptionalism like that. Plant seeds of doubt.
do they care about other people or the environment? the case for like morally needing to be punished for its crimes (re marginalized people in the US, or internationally )or the primacy of oil interests destroying the planet are more to the point than explaining theories of parliamentary organization & class rule
Unless they are completely irredeemable, you can probably find some policy issue or local "problem" that could be easily fixed with direct governmental effort that everybody seems to agree with but that never gets on any ballot or is stopped by a few members of the local governing body who never seem to be convinced by the majority of people to move forward with the project.
(being USA-centric with this example)
Hey, did you know that Single Payer Medicare for All is a super popular policy? It always polls super well, in every state and every demographic. How is it that the issue never shows up for the people to vote on? How is it that politicians can't seem to enact the will of the people?
I wonder why that is? Lets talk about it...
I ask myself this question every day but I can't think of a single answer to it
Sorry I couldn't be helpful, but it is an important question
If I had to try to break it down simply to get libs across the line, or at least onto the fence, I'd try to go if > then statements that seek agreement, then push into the next line of argument. Something like:
Putting it under spoiler tag cos it's a bit long, maybe even self indulgent:
::: spoiler spoiler
How many things has the US professed to want to solve, but failed. With all the wealth and power in the world. Poverty is worsening, the climate is collapsing, life expectancy is declining. If this is supposedly the 'best of all alternatives' and if free market capitalism is meant to organically solve thorny problems, why hasn't it?
Then, how have other countries actually managed to make an impact, and not just Nordic 'socialism' but reportedly autocratic enemies of the state. Why does Cuba have better universal preventative medical care and literacy? How is China already ahead of its stated decarbonisation goals? How was Vietnam able to quash covid while the USA spiralled?
Every stated aspiration of the USA (health, wealth and liberty) is realised by other nations, but never recognised by the US political establishment. It has the power and the wealth, so if had the will, it could achieve all these things. So the only conclusion is that it doesn't have the will.
Why doesn't it have the will? Because the system is not designed to solve the problems it creates. A problem solved is a political chess piece off the table and requires progress into improving other aspects of (admittedly domestic) US policy. A market gap eliminated is a market gap unavailable to be monetised.
If the system cannot provide what it purports to want, but others can, then it is by definition failing. After that it's socialism or barbarism.
Edit: anticapitalism is the easy part. The hard part is setting up the anticapitalism in a framework that lends itself to seeking an effective alternative (demonstrated by the examples in AES), as opposed to whatever brand of fascism gets its claws in first be it ancapism, nazism or ecofascism.
In very broad terms, too, this is the route that I took to get here and unfortunately it appears more clean cut in hindsight. There will be roadblocks along the way (Libertarianism e.g. 'Yes, China has a higher living standard in PPP terms but they live under a dictatorship, give me liberty or give me death' or reformism/electoralism are two major ones, but pressing the line that effective systems already exist that are doing what people want is what cuts through, imo.)
:::
Explain how the two parties are bad. Then explain why lobbying causes them to be bad, and the electoral system keeps them in power regardless. Finally, explain how, obviously, none of the two parties will remove either problem, and therefore the system must be destroyed. Bonus if they also agree that capitalism must end.
they've been saying that since 1776 and it hasn't worked out yet. face it, she's a lemon. if you want salvage, take her to the junkyard.
you can't, people are cattle, and can only understand things thru vibes-based herd reasoning
you have to appeal to the 
and say stuff like "why the fuck is China so ahead of us?"
Additional ammo: 'if Trump is an existential threat to the system... What use is the system if it allowed him in?'
Also, point out the idea of how the economy is this nebulous thing, that just so happens to have an effect like a god on every facet of our lives. This is a fact that nobody can deny. When they acknowledge this, simply ask them "did you vote on for this economy?". Of course not, you don't get to, but it - a man made thing - gets to determine your life course. Then point out that famous rich people can sway the economy with their words as they please. If Musk called a press conference in an hour (you, me, and everyone we've ever known doesn't have that ability.) and said money isn't real, it's all a big scam, bla bla bla, world markets would collapse and you'd probably lose your home.
That John Brown was the one good white man; and that odds are good if he was with us today, he'd have shot every single one of us, communists and supposed-leftists alike, for allowing the carceral slavery complex to exist and perpetuate as it has.
Start with local issues they can actually relate to.
In my experience, it's often privileged leftists who have a "burn it all to the ground and build something better" mindset come from a place of privilege that would enable them to weather the storm. It reminds me of men telling women right now "things have to get worse before they can get better" or "it doesn't matter who wins" when policies relating to bodily autonomy are critical to women.