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 right now. I […]
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.