That definition I linked to posits a false dichotomy, though. There’s more to any given political group than the inneffective utopian idealists and the pragmatic, compromising realists. Inability to get elected does not automatically render one a loser in the great political game.
Some time ago, a guy named Linus wrote a new operating system because he didn’t care for the existing alternatives. A decade or so later, it’s challanging and in some cases beating Windows and all the commercial Unixes in every market segment they compete in. This was accomplished largely without hype, without campaigning, and without great quantities of money. It happened because the people that mattered, the people working in the trenches of the IT industry, saw something they needed and used it. It was a battle won without fighting. A quintessentially Taoist victory. Ubiquity through natural osmosis.
I’m not much interested in winning elections, or passing or repealing laws, or acquiring majorities. I’m interested in making all those things irrelevent. To mangle an old hippie slogan, what if they threw a government, and nobody cared?
Practicaly every revolutionary ideologue in history has gotten it backwards. You can’t change the nature of a people by changing their government. In order to change the government, you must first transform the people.