1/2: Incrementalism isn't a solution per se, to me, the idea of "incrementalism" (though what I'm really talking about is movement building) is to at least attempt to bypass the very resistance you talk about, while building the needed class consciousness and alternative institutions needed to subvert and eventually overthrow capitalism. Essentially, an evolutionary revolution.
Yes it can seem like "settling" but the material conditions just aren't there for a full scale revolution in the United States or most other developed countries, and trying to force said conditions by say, electing Trump, not only risks fascism being able to crush the movement through the apparatus of the police state, but is unethical, essentially having a situation where the working class, particularly the super-exploited members thereof, have to suffer through "temporary" pain for a chance at a revolution.
Also I personally believe that the revolutionary vanguard type action is predisposed to descend into authoritarianism (not guaranteed) because as Marx said, even socialists still have the birth marks of the old society, which includes hierarchy, concentration of power, and exploitation. Furthermore, in a revolutionary situation there will be a great deal of short term disruption of both production and distribution (whether or not instigated by the reactionaries) which leaves the socialist republic with two choices - either continue political democracy and have itself be potentially be voted out, or crack down to try to defend the revolution and we all know where that leads.
3: It was a mixture of both if you ask me. A less sympathetic "establishment" could have continued stomping on the face of the working class and not given up an iota of power. Yes, enough popular pressure can overcome this but you need different material conditions than what I see existing in the USA for the forseeable future. I think such gains are seen as "give x amount of power to the working class to forestall revolution", but in reality, giving said power actually creates an ecosystem that makes revolutionary change more feasible. For example let's say an UBI was implemented tomorrow. It'd likely be very limited in scope, and probably barely cover costs of living. But now that say, a low-wage worker doesn't risk starvation by striking or trying to join a union, the capitalist class loses a lot of leverage.
I agree, the dual power situation is exactly what I have in mind; the issue is CREATING that dual power situation. Essentially the idea is to work within the existing system while actively trying to subvert it. A castle is very difficult to conquer head on, but if you infiltrate the castle and start removing the bricks, then suddenly it becomes a lot easier. Of course, there's the added complication of not only destroying the old castle but then using the bricks to build a new castle in its place, while destroying the old one.
Also happy May Day!
= new reply since forum marked as read