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.
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.
She is certainly a liberal, no question about it. Most progressives are, though.
Is "progressive" just a vibe?
Again, Marx did not argue for reforming the government, that's not seizing the means of production.
I already told you I'm a Communist, I'd rather you not talk down to me and explain my position for me.
Progressives are reformist, not revolutionary though. Progressives will usually fight against the use of violence to change the system.
Kamala isn't changing the system, nor does she seem to want to. So, is she no longer a progressive in your eyes?
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.
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.
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.
She's not evolving the system, this isn't reform, this is continued liberalism.