this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
-34 points (23.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7238 readers
215 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
She's making the same mistakes Hillary did i.e. ignoring the Democratic base to appeal to moderate Republicans.
@queermunist @chobeat Not sure that's a big deal in this election, that election she was up against a loud mouthed television star that she didn't think anyone would elect, this election, we know what's coming, so you can largely bank on Democrats voting for her.
Nuh uh
Pretty core difference that Hilary was a moderate that had to try to win over the left. Harris is a progressive that has to try to win over the middle.
Thinking you can be a progressive that wins on progressivism alone with no coalition building or winning over anyone else only gets you the percentage of total American voters that are progressive, and is a recipe for defeat. There just aren't enough of us that ascribe to the whole platform.
Harris is a moderate Liberal, not a progressive. She's not winning over leftists, but she is trying to appeal to the less fascist republicans.
Harris would be center-right in any other developed country, but in the US, any position left of hunting the homeless for sport is immediately decried as communism, so there's the internal impression that in comparison to the ultra-extremists that make up the right, she is - relatively speaking - progressive.
According to her senate voting record she is quite progressive. You have to go by voting record, you can't use rhetoric.
I agree she's trying to pull some of the non-maga repubs though.
What do you mean by "progressive?"
Reformist dems. Voting rights protections, higher taxes, higher business regulation, more public services, environmental action, criminal justice reform, minority protections. For starters.
Oh, you mean a centrist
No, the centrists are the neolibs. Lower taxes, light on regulation. Generally little criminal justice reform or environmental action. To the right of the centrists are the conservatives, against almost all regulation, criminal justice reform and minority protections. To the right of the conservatives are the fascists, be a christian or gtfo. Rolling back a lot of freedoms.
To the left of the centrists are the progressives, also often known as social democrats, who want highly regulated capitalism and a democratic society. To the left of them are communists, who want full egalitarianism.
In America anyway. Harris being an American presidential candidate, using the American scale seems appropriate.
Lenin was a democratic socialist.
You're talking about social democrats.
Oh, thank you. I'll edit.
Like, can you give an example? Additionally, these are all moderate liberal platforms.
Sure. Here's a list of some of the bills she introduced to congress when she was in:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678
Personally though I'm fond of her Back On Track program from back when she was AG if I remember right, where nonviolent offenders could get out of jail time and get their records expunged if they enrolled in education or got a job.
And yea we could quibble on what "progressive" means if we wanted, but we risk just getting into no true scottsman stuff. In my view, people that want to improve the existing system with steady movement forward qualify as progressive. This is in opposition to the neolib dem faction that does not want to progress forward, and instead just wants to keep to the Bill Clinton direction of the party.
Thanks for the source.
Either way, it seems we disagree with what we count as progressive. Harris seems intent on carrying through the Party Line of the DNC, and not moving an inch leftward, ergo she's not appealing to leftists but less extreme fascists. She isn't even campaigning on ceasing arms to Israel or even Medicare for All, it's just continued liberalism.
I agree, she is not campaigning on those things. But like I said earlier, I don't believe in listening to rhetoric, it's just too unpredictable when campaigning and governing within our legal governmental structure are such different things.
If she could deliver medicare for all, then perhaps I'd be happy to see it as a campaign issue. But delivering that without more progressive congress seats would be impossible, when both the repubs and neolib dems would oppose it. This would make it an empty campaign promise.
Regarding Gaza, I hope she does shift after the election, but I do not mind her saying what she has to say to win the office first.
A key thing to note is that there is no static DNC line. While the neolibs do outnumber us in most places, if we got more progressive officials in this would change. All we have is a handful of reps in the Squad and a couple senators though, that's not good enough.
I think there's a discrepancy here, I'm a Communist, not a Liberal. There's nobody in the DNC nor GOP that represents me, not even the squad. Even then, the Squad is regularly shut down by the Party at large, and forced to toe the Party Line.
There's discrepancy within the DNC, but there's also an overarching line to hold, and Capitalist donors to appease.
I agree, you have virtually no representation in our federal govt, your numbers are just too small. The closest would be Bernie, and he's not even a member of the dem party. He still supports capitalism too, just with stronger regulation and a robust social safety net, paid for by taxes.
You're to the left of mainstream American progressives, basically. Which should make sense when Marx argued for revolution, not reform.
Yes, so I am skeptical when I hear you say Harris is "progressive" when she is running on even harsher border control and "the most lethal military in the world."
Like I said, I do not believe in listening to rhetoric. Words are cheap. Actions are meaningful. I don't care what she runs on, she could run on launching all our nukes at Florida and I still would not listen very much.
I agree, but based on her voting record she is a tepid liberal, and based on her words she will continue to be so.
She is certainly a liberal, no question about it. Most progressives are, though.
Again, Marx did not argue for reforming the government, that's not seizing the means of production. Progressives are reformist, not revolutionary though. Progressives will usually fight against the use of violence to change the system.
You can't just claim all of progressivism for communism just because you're a communist and see it as progress, that's not fair for the rest of us that want change, but not communism.
Is "progressive" just a vibe?
I already told you I'm a Communist, I'd rather you not talk down to me and explain my position for me.
Kamala isn't changing the system, nor does she seem to want to. So, is she no longer a progressive in your eyes?
Good thing I didn't claim that. She isn't even trying to reform, she's maintaining the current system with minor tweaks.
I already said, progressives seek to reform the system. That means joining it, and fixing it steadily from within. You can see the differences between this and a communist revolution, yes? It is not a complete change to an entirely different system, it is evolution of the system.
You may see these tweaks as too minor, and that's fine. But that just means you are not a progressive. Which makes complete sense since you've said you're a communist. If all progressives were communists, we wouldn't need two separate words, right? But we have two words, for the two different things.
She's not evolving the system, this isn't reform, this is continued liberalism.
You do not need to switch to a completely different system in order to qualify for the words "evolve" or "reform". That's just not what those words mean in the English language. Words that would apply better would be "overhaul" "replacement" or "revolution".
If someone wants to abandon all liberalism instead of changing the type of liberalism while keeping liberalism, they are not progressive.
She isn't "reforming" the system, she's continuing it. That's it.
Here is the definition of the word "reform":
make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it. "an opportunity to reform and restructure an antiquated schooling model"
This is different from what you want. It's okay for you to not want reform. You are not a reformist, not a progressive, you are something else. We progressives are your opponents though, we want liberalism. Progressives do not want to eliminate capitalism.
She's not changing it, she's administrating it.
Again, reform keeps the system, it just evolves it. If you are changing the system, you are not a reformist. Not a progressive. Something else.
You know how in biological evolution animals slowly change into other animals with lots of small steps? They don't just suddenly turn into something else completely? That.
You don't need all change right now or you're not changing. The world can have small changes too, and these are still changes.
No, reform changes the system through legislative changes, not by keeping the course and tweaking.
Yes, exactly. Changes within the system. Not total changes from one system to another.
Harris has a progressive voting record, of making changes within our system towards a certain direction. Like that criminal justice reform I mentioned earlier from her lawyer days. That is a difference, a change, from how we did things previously, when nonviolent offenders could not necessarily get out jail or get their records expunged.
You may not think it goes far enough, but that just reflects your personal desires. It doesn't change the basic definitions of words in the English language.
Reformism refers to attempting to dramatically alter the course from within. Small, incremental tweaks isn't reforming anything, it is making incremental tweaks to the same trajectory, the same course. Harris in power will not result in a change in any trajectory, just furthering the current trajectory. Reformists seek to enact change to this trajectory.
You've been nothing but smug and condescending this entire time. Read Reform or Revolution, and get off your high-horse.
Yeah, I don't use strictly Marxist literature to define my terms, I use more standard American definitions. And we are a liberal society, so some difference is to be expected.
You don't seem to be able to meet me even a single iota, but that is not surprising given your own very focused beliefs. Just try not to claim the whole left side everything, including the word progressive, just for your own philosophy. There is such a thing as "middle-left", to your right, and we are unfortunately opposed to you, wanting to keep a highly regulated capitalist system with just some socialism.
You don't appear to use any literature, just vibes.
You do not want "some Socialism," you want social programs. Social programs are not themselves Socialism.
Either way, Leftism begins at Socialism. There are non-Marxist Leftists, but there are no Leftist Liberals. Leftism isn't a vibe, it's your position with respect to ownership of the Means of Production and class dynamics.
I quoted my definition for reform, it's below. It's just a dictionary definition, reflecting common parlance.
Fair distinction on socialism vs social programs. It's not vibes though, it's just liberalism. If we put fascism on the right, and full egalitarianism on the left, there's a middle where liberalism sits. Hierarchical with enhanced social mobility. We're that, just leaning leftward. We are not genuine leftists, despite what the right calls us. In America anyway.
I was familiar with the term both before and after you quoted it. You are using it in a manner that directly contests how it is used politically, even outside Marxism.
That's not the left and right, though. Communism and Anarchism occupy the far-left, fascism the far-right, and in the middle is something like Market Socialism. The beginning of the Right is Social Democracy, and the middle-right is Liberalism.
The divide between left and right is Socialism vs Capitalism, ie Dictatorship of the Proletariat or Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, ie Common Ownership of the Means of Production or Private Ownership of the Means of Production.
Social Democrats are progressives, generally. Social Democrats are a subset of Liberal. Kamala is not a Social Democrat, she is a standard right-wing Liberal.
Politically reform just means making changes to your system. It does not require them to be extreme changes that change the fundamental nature of how the system itself is structured. You can be a reformist while making many small changes that over time create a larger change, this is not some impossible thing or contradiction in terms.
Here's its historical context:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345230462_'Reform'_in_English_public_life_the_fortunes_of_a_word
While the full text is unavailable, note the first excerpt at the bottom. Improvement, not replacement. The word improvement implies you are keeping the thing.
On the grand scale, I can agree with that. I am an American talking about an American presidential candidate, though, so I'm using the American scale which we all do agree leans right. It chops you guys off almost entirely, since you just don't exist in any significant numbers in our system. Where we have plenty of fascists.
Yeah, you're right, she's a little right of social dem. She's to the left of neo-lib though, which is where our American system has its middle, and includes the mainline of the DNC for the past few decades. The overton window has shifted as we progressives have lost ground economically in the past half century or so. I'll maintain though, that progressives just want progress. If we fall to the fascists, even conservatives will become "progressive" just for wanting free speech and women's suffrage back.
This is using a technicality to try to pidgeon-hole maintenance of the status quo as reformist. This is absurd. By your definition, everyone is either a reformist or a revolutionary, including people that wish to preserve the current system and merely steward it. There's no such thing as a static system. Reformism, therefore, has historically been used to refer to people that wish to restructure the current system from within, rather than without.
The good news for Communists, both American and non-American, is that the contradictions within Imperialism have been weakening the American Empire, which is likely to collapse in the coming decades.
This is a bit ahistorical. Historically, liberals have joined hands with conservatives against Communists and Socialists and formed fascism. It happened in Italy, in the Weimar Republic, and is likely to happen again in America. You can see that with the DNC and GOP standing firm in support of the Palestinian Genocide. This is because the DNC and GOP get their power from 2 sides of the same source, the Bourgeoisie, not the public.
Tell that to the fascists. Whether we like it or not, that's just false. It is quite possible to have a system that experiences no changes of any significance for a whole human lifetime. Most of human history was this way, it just does not agree with your Marxist definition.
Yeah, you're really getting into the weeds here. While yes, Hitler's rise within Weimar was enabled by the moneyed interests, Italy was still operating under a Constitutional Monarchy at the time, where the king still had significant authority. Mussolini did have some liberal support, no question, but it was not his keys to power like it was in Weimar.
I won't disagree that liberalism stands in opposition to you, I've said that three times now. It also stands in opposition to fascism though, as WW2 very notably demonstrated once it was realized fascists were such a destructive, chaotic element.
Regarding Gaza, no, I don't think that's due to the bourgeoisie. The profits from the MIC are negligible compared to things like the tech industry or domestic energy production. Instead its recognition that the Palestinian cause itself is far from innocent, and fully cutting off Israel would thus not be sufficient to save them. Without the threat of America leaving, if we simply followed through, then the Palestinians could simply all be starved.
Excuse me, what? Every second, there are quantitative changes. The river you visited yesterday has worn down the rocks of today, almost imperceptibly, but it has worn them down nonetheless. Capital has continued to monopolize, wealth disparity continues to grow, all while liberalism continues to dominate. You're taking an ahistorical, anti-science position here.
WWII was a war between Imperialist Capitalist powers. The USSR sided with the Imperialists against the fascists, but the Imperialists wanted the Socialists and fascists to destroy each other. This isn't because liberalism is anti-fascist, but pro-profit. The spoils of war went largely to America, but also to the European powers. It was immensely profitable.
This is monstrous and immaterial analysis. The only reason the US supports Israel is because Israel is the equivalent of an aircraft carrier on land. Israel serves as a threat to the surrounding countries, and it is in this manner that the US Petro-Dollar dominates global finance for the US' Imperialist ambitions. America is not Anti-Palestine out of any moral consideration, but economic. Biden said it best himself, Israel is the US best investment, and if it did not exist the US would have to invent one.
I'm sorry, but you're woefully misinformed on these matters, especially with respect to Palestine. I urge you to read up on the history of these conflicts and why they happened.
Yeah, changes in river water are totally irrelevant to governmental systems, you're just playing semantics now in a desperate attempt to not have to admit you lied when you said your definition of reform was standard for the political world instead of just Marxism.
WW2 had a USSR that annexed half of Poland against its will. That's an Imperial Power my friend. lol I know you mean economic imperialism, though.
I know you communists believe materialism governs everything, but that's why you're such historical failures. There's just more to it than that. Frankly though, we are now energy independent, we no longer need our aircraft carrier in the Middle East. That rhetoric is from the 60s.
I believe our differences are irreconcilable, I know full well how thorough and unalterable the communist philosophy is. You similarly will not be able to convince me to buy into such a simplistic, one-dimensional, material-based view of everything though.
Wrong on 2 accounts.
In any system with moving objects, such as circulation of currency and accumulation of Capital, the system itself is changing. Amazon was not the behemoth it is today even 10 years ago.
Reformism is used to refer to wishing to restructure the current system even outside of Marxism. Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, hell even Libertarians are usually Reformists. None of these are Marxist.
The government of Poland abandoned it before the USSR even went in, and the USSR went in after the Nazis went in to prevent the entirety of Poland going to the Nazis. Talk to some Polish people on Lemmy, there are many Polish Communists.
You really are allergic to listening, aren't you? First of all, rejecting Materialism is to say that you believe perception to be reality, rather than reality creating perception, which is ridiculous. Second of all, Israel doesn't exist for the US to get cheap oil, but so that the world trades in Dollars and not, say, the Yuan. That's why I specifically used the word Petro-Dollar, as many other countries need to get oil, and do so with Dollars.
On the contrary, believing that Material Reality is what guides ideas, rather than ideas guiding material reality, is stock-standard science. Communist philosophy and strategy has changed numerous times as well since Marx and Engels, to not change would be to reject the foundations of Marxism.
Either way, it's fine for us to be in disagreement, I know that I am correct and that the world doesn't bend around what you or I believe, as much as you want it to. Reality will continue to progress and the American Empire will crumble whether or not you agree with Marxism.
Yeah, your issue was you wanted the reform to be systemic, remember? If the reform is not changing the structure of the system you didn't want to call it reform, but administration or something like that. I disagreed and said reform can be incremental and maintain the system, simply with improvements. You provided Marxist literature to support your claim, I provided a dictionary definition and a historical analysis of the word "reform" for mine.
Okay, what would a non-communist Pole say? lol
The two can actually create each other, depending on circumstances. Religion, for instance, has created many realities independent of materialism. Particularly in their infancy, before they became large, mainstream churches.
Israel existing in no way forces someone like Saudi Arabia to deal in dollars. This is just dumb. Saudi Arabia can accept whatever currency gives them the most benefit, Israel has nothing to do with it.
Actually no, we could look at quantum mechanics for an example of a way perception itself changes reality, where an observed and unobserved photon will exhibit different behaviors. Perhaps you should stick to philosophy.
You seem to have great faith, I hope you enjoy your religion, though I do hope you can eventually grow past your hatred of the ~~Great Satan~~west. We're really not that evil.
I provided Marxist literature because it's older and proves the historical context of the term "Reform" as it relates to politics. Choosing to keep the form is not reform.
Are you implying that a non-communist pole would have wanted to be under the Nazis? Lol.
Yep, there it is, full rejection of science by yourself.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Saudi Arabia risks war with Israel and by extension the US if they trade in anything other than Dollars, hence the term Petro-Dollar, though times are changing and SA is looking to increase ties with BRICS.
You truly don't understand Quantum Mechanics if this is your interpretation, nor Materialism.
You haven't once genuinely answered anything, except when you implied your support of the Nazis taking all of Poland. The West is evil, yes, and will collapse, yes. America's constant genocides will end eventually and the Global South will throw off US Imperialism, ceasing their exploitation. Trying to call Materialism "religion" and requiring faith when you previously stated that Religion created Reality is ridiculous.
You two, get a room
Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists consider themselves reformists and yet are not Marxists.
Talk to some poles, holy shit. The Nazis slaughtered the poles. This is Nazi Apologia and is absolutely monstrous behavior, no wonder liberals side with fascists. Here's another common joke: scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
Of course there is. This is a hot topic in the economics world, as Saudi Arabia is ending the exclusive Petro-Dollar Agreement
Ideas of religion come from reality. People making up religion to explain their material reality doesn't mean the thoughts of religion predated percieving reality. Religion was an explanation for reality before science surpassed it, not the other way around. You fundamentally do not understand Materialism nor Idealism.
Perception does not create QM. QM isn't something that exists purely in perception, it's reality first and foremost. You're misunderstanding Materialism and Idealism once again.
You mean sympathizing with Nazis is your idea of dealing with people fairly?
That is not a source. Donald Trump can call himself a reformist if he wants, that would not make him one. And anyway, Soc Dems do not want to abolish capitalism either.
You know who else slaughtered Poles? Russians.
That is not evidence of an Israeli-Saudi war.
No, ideas of religion do not have to come from reality. They can come from indoctrination, with no evidence for any real effects necessary whatsoever. They do not have to be poor, rich, landed, unlanded, there is no material requirement for a person to engage with religion. It's simply a choice divorced from reality, and sometimes not even a choice.
Yeah, your philosophy is running headfirst into evidence. It's pretty clear you're just spouting bullshit without even knowing anything about the physics now. It is, admittedly, very counter-intuitive and came about much later than Marxist philosophy.
Yeah, you can try to spin this however you want, either way, I have not tried to deceive you and have dealt with every point you have raised, without spin. You should question why you have to suddenly spin this though, just because I say the USSR should not have partitioned Poland with Hitler. Anyways though, was the USSR generously protecting Finland from Nazis as well?