What you're going to do is...work within the system for incremental change? Um...??

That's basically what you're advocating for.

Now, I happen to agree that this is the sensible and effective way to operate. However, "I want to burn the system to the ground, but I'll settle for a 20% increase to the minimum wage" is a very weird kind of policy position.

The problem is that burned-to-the-ground systems tend to operate like Libya, Somalia, Mao's China, etc.. Burned-down systems usually operate really badly. Switching out "I have to write 10% more job applications to get the same number of interviews" or "society discourages my self-advocacy as a woman but then pays self-advocates 15% more--what is up with that?" for "I hope the drinking water will last and the warlord's gangs won't kill my family before we can get food at the next humanitarian aid delivery so we maybe can try to walk to the next town" is not a plus.

So I think most of the problem with crafting effective legislative agendas is the inchoate rage to begin with. If the system is fucked, why go painting its nails with modestly better protections against eminent domain used against communities with high proportions of traditionally disadvantaged minorities?

The only reason to bother is to accept that, actually, the system is not that fucked, but actually has a lot of potential and a lot of things worth saving despite the sizable problems, so that an incremental approach is worthwhile rather than burning the system to the ground.