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.
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 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.
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.
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 appear to use any literature, just vibes.
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 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 quoted my definition for reform, it's below. It's just a dictionary definition, reflecting common parlance.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
There’s no such thing as a static system.
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.
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.
-