Do alot people reading this react in this manner in their professional life as well, or is this just the usual kind of knee-jerk reaction when someone suggest that something needs to be changed, or rethought, on a much lower lever then the usual superficial alterations we're used to see in the political field?
I'm like this professionally too; in fact it's my professional experience that informs this political view (I was a fairly gung-ho socialist before I became a professional developer). Attempting to fundamentally re-architect a software system almost always ends in disaster - I've seen it happen, or http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html is the standard reference.
What works? Incremental changes that you can make while keeping the current system running. It's ok if you have some grand masterplan behind your changes, but try and make sure those small changes will be valuable even if you have to abandon the grand plan, or change its direction. So I now approach politics this way, and it feels like this is a more mature position, not less.
I think we basically agree, but your reply was a dogmatic one. Discarding the notion of political change without bothering to listen to, or express arguments.
Gradual change do not exclude fundamental change - eventually. Revolution is after all just evolution speeded up. It's just a different approach.
I was flippant and dismissive yes, but I think that comment I originally replied to - "Capitalists can't do this? Because other capitalists will drive them out of business? My my, isn't the system really fucked! Time for some radical architectural changes." - was unlikely to be worth engaging with.
It's just sad and juvenile.