Kamala Harris Will Lose - Yasmin Nair
Kamala Harris Will Lose - Yasmin Nair
I know this goes against the popular narrative about Kamala Harris, especially after the recently concluded Democratic National Convention (DNC). But I think she is headed for a loss, and that we may well see a repeat of 2016. I thought of adding “probably” to the title, but matters are pretty stark...
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
rejecting Materialism is to say that you believe perception to be reality, rather than reality creating perception
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 Satanwest. We're really not that evil.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.
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.
Okay, what would a non-communist Pole say? lol
Are you implying that a non-communist pole would have wanted to be under the Nazis? 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.
Yep, there it is, full rejection of science by yourself.
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.
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.
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 truly don't understand Quantum Mechanics if this is your interpretation, nor Materialism.
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 Satanwest. We're really not that evil.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
Still a semantic argument. But anyway, can you present any non-Marxist source to back your claim about the history and meaning of this English word?
Yes, over being invaded by the Soviets as well, very much so. One butcher is better than two butchers, and there is no love lost there. To quote an old Polish joke:
'A Polish man finds a genie in a bottle. The genie offers him three wishes.
The Pole says, “I want the Mongols to invade Poland and then go back to Mongolia.”
So it happens.
For his next wish, the Pole also asks for the Mongols to invade Poland and then go home.
So it happens.
For his third wish, the Pole again asks for the Mongols to invade Poland and go home.
“I gave you three wishes,” the genie cries. “Why did you ask for the Mongols to invade Poland and then go home three times?”
“Because they had to march across Russia six times.”'
Saudi Arabia risks war with Israel and by extension the US if they trade in anything other than Dollars, hence the term Petro-Dollar
There is no evidence for this.
You really don't see how a bunch of people's belief in something can cause them to make a decision that affects our world? I see it regularly. People sit down to pray. This is an action that happens. It is because of their perceptions. Nothing in science would deny that any of this happens.
Regarding QM, I'd ask you to please try to explain the results of double-slit experiment in some other way, then.
I think I've dealt with you quite fairly, actually. Only your faith seems to prevent you from acknowledging anything outside of standard communist doctrine.
edit for the joke
Still a semantic argument. But anyway, can you present any non-Marxist source to back your claim about the history and meaning of this English word?
Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists consider themselves reformists and yet are not Marxists.
Yes, over being invaded by the Soviets as well, very much so. One butcher is better than two butchers, and there is no love lost there. To quote an old Polish joke:
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.
There is no evidence for this.
Of course there is. This is a hot topic in the economics world, as Saudi Arabia is ending the exclusive Petro-Dollar Agreement
You really don't see how a bunch of people's belief in something can cause them to make a decision that affects our world? I see it regularly. People sit down to pray. This is an action that happens. It is because of their perceptions. Nothing in science would deny that any of this happens.
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.
Regarding QM, I'd ask you to please try to explain the results of double-slit experiment in some other way, then.
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.
I think I've dealt with you quite fairly, actually. Only your faith seems to prevent you from acknowledging anything outside of standard communist doctrine.
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?
-