Some may be familiar with the idea of in-system versus out-system activism. In-system activism utilizes existing avenues of political, legal, and economic influence seeking, ultimately, policy change. In-system activism doesn't see the structure of the system itself as a problem or at least it doesn't act like it does. There is no shortage of activists out there writing books, making media, and holding events surrounding the idea of system level change, talked about all the time. But if you look closely, that's not actually what they're proposing. What they call system change is just the add-on of more regulatory patches or policies. In fact, the very term has become a terrible misnomer thrown around with no distinction, even here on this subreddit. Everyone likes to drop statements about how this “system” we have is corrupt, or incompatible, or wrong, or inhumane yet virtually no mainstream activists that say these things actually approach it from that position. They are still operating in-system.
In contrast, out-system activism sees the entire socioeconomic structure rooted in the market economy as too limited in its potential expression, too limited in what it's capable of adapting to, to be useful in the long run. It can't solve the problems inherently and hence, true activism today must come from outside of what the system supports, forcing structural change, not policy change. The structuralist movement, if you want to call it that, people that think this way is interested in structural change, not policy change. And it isn't to say that improvements can't be made using tools of policy, but the inhibition inherent to fight back will always come from the root of the system itself, making any seeming advancements in policy tenuous and easy to overturn in time.