tilt essentially made his point.
I'll try to put this another way.
Say I really care about income inequality and have been frustrated that what you call the centrist wing of the democratic party has catered to corporate interests at the expense of their constituents, which is almost certainly true. Even if I think they've been idiots about this, we need a critical mass of support to enact any real change. That is much more likely to happen if I can convince them they are wrong, than if I make them my enemy.
So I can take two approaches:
1. Dear centrist, I recognize the important role business plays in the health of our economy overall, but I believe arguments for instituting extreme cuts for corporations are based on several myths. First, corporate profits are at record highs, and importantly, despite this, corporations are NOT using this excess money to create more jobs, see chart below. They are also not using to raise wages. See second chart. They are instead hoarding cash, issuing stock buy backs, etc. These things only help wealthy stock holders and do little to nothing for our lower and middle class. Furthermore, economist broadly agree that for every dollar saved with corporate tax cuts, only 20 cents actually goes to labor.
If we are to call ourselves a progressive party, I have to believe there are much more efficient uses of a trillion dollars or more that this will cost. Just as two example, we could pay for free universal pre-K, and eliminate the ACA subsidy cliff that makes insurance difficult to afford, and still have money left over to invest in infrastructure.
OR
2. FUCK YOU CORPORATE LAP DOG SCUM.
I recognize that some people believe that burning it all down is necessary, and that at some unidentified time in the future it could lead to a stronger progressive party that does a better job helping everyone. I just think they haven't thought through the consequences of that, and how many people it would hurt in the near term.