• Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.”

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I agree, but based on her voting record she is a tepid liberal, and based on her words she will continue to be so.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

              • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                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.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  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.

                  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    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.