146
‘They will vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan desert Democrats over Gaza
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
146 points (80.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7167 readers
760 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Which policies do you believe are poorly constructed?
literally every single one she listed.... she's certainly not a unifying figure that socialism needs. she isnt dog whistling shes full throat fog horning and poorly.
good luck. that'll take years and won't fly for a lot of people. nor will it fix the problem. all its doing is triggering an immediate immune response from the unthinking masses. Nor does it address daily issues working american's are experiencing. I understand what shes going for, but she doesn't know how to accomplish it effectively.
sigh... same problem as above. removing the FBI and NSA will have little to no material impact on working americans.
yeah okay. again get what shes going for but non of that can be accomplished without a supportive congress. What to over throw the system? great I'm right there with you. but have an actual workable plan.
sigh. so completely cripple our economy, and trade one relatively friendly genocidal country for two unfriendly genocidal countries. sounds like a great plan.
sigh reparations, i get it i really do. but its just another aspect of the race war and sadly black americans are not yet populous enough to pull it off. could just as easily have said 'build a social safety net to support working americans'
again great cause, but lacks the acume to identify the levers to pull to make it a reality.
sigh. again just isolating herself from many american's who believe in capitalism.
So you just don't like Socialism, I guess?
incorrect, Im a socialist. she just doesn't know how to be effective at getting the change we all desire; and I doubt she'll be good as a president. shes hurt and angry and lashing out. she should run locally for a governor position and prove she knows how to develop and build worker run cooperatives before trying her hand at the national stage.
the first step is following khan by breaking non-competes, then provide support and resources for worker run organizations.
For clarity, PSL is a Marxist organization, not a Syndicalist or Social Democrat org. As such, she is not individually picking policies based on being "hurt and angry," but Marxist analysis along party lines. The goal of Marxism isn't worker cooperatives, more on that in the article Cooperative Property Is Not Socialist (bad title, the point is that cooperatives are not Marxist).
Additionally, PSL is a revolutionary org (again, it's Marxist), it isn't trying to reform the system, but overthrow it entirely.
You're attempting to make a distinction that is immaterial to the end result, as your own article admits. like i said shes more than welcome to run, she just won't get any support which is what she needs. destruction for destruction sake doesn't work, nor does it ensure the end result.
like I said, I suspect Claudia has a back bone, what revolutionary doesn't? she is just doomed to failure because she doesn't know how to conduct a revolution and will be unable to gain support because she refused to find levers to pull and instead just swings a hammer, because shes hurt and angry. If thats your jam by all means vote for her, but be aware ignoring the facts i just presented makes you just as blind as harris is. :)
She isn't doing destruction for destruction's sake.
You have yet to explain any of this.
absolutely is unless there is a plan to replace the system. hence all of my original points around her lack of coherent plans that address actual needs of the people. breaking the current system without sound ideas on how the new system will operate is destruction for destruction sake. You don't tear your house down without a alternative place to shelter. but keep waving your flag on the hill, I'lll bring you a picnic basket and chill with you. =)
I dont need to, those are my opinions you can take or leave them as you will. or just watch the election play out and get your answer. =)
You read the party platform of PSL. PSL has coherent plans.
That isn't what's happening.
You keep arguing against strawmen.
That's fine, you just have no coherent plans for establishing Socialism.
you're welcome to link to resources. I checked out her campaign site it wasn't interesting and i explained why each point will fail. I dont particularly care to spend my time beyond that digging to decide if she was is worth my time, determined she isn't. The campaign site is incoherent as far as plans go. if you want to goal post shift to PSL in general feel free to do so and i'll tell you what i think but otherwise. 🤷 if you want support you need to do the effort to earn it. ;)
PSL is DemCent, the party platform is her platform.
quick scan looks like a non-starter for me but good luck! anything where economy is centrally managed is a horrible idea, and something marx got very wrong its essentially what we have now just with a different person in charge. 🤷
What a fantastic way to say you have no idea what Marxism is, nor how Socialism is different from Capitalism. Consider reading Why Public Property?
Central Planning is the only way forward.
because I dont give a shit about marxist. its mostly nonsense. he identified the root problem but failed to understand human nature or how to build robust economies/systems. just because you're blinded doesn't mean every socialist is as foolish. centralized planning is what we have today in late stage capitalism, and its what caused communist societies to collapse under the corruption they foster. like i said good luck in your idealistic vision it'll never work because its inflexible and misses the point.
edit: now i was a little terse there sorry. anyways I dont need you to give me an expose on marxism. its strictly unnecessary.
is where the PSL is claiming to require a planned economy. which is a bad idea and thats what I was reacting to; its what we have today and its ripe for corruption. any socialist movement is going to have to learn to reject centralized structures beyond a certain size.
if the goal is to prevent wealth accumulation/ensure the needs of the workers are met, there are other methods to do so that dont require a planned economy.
now I suggest you go spend your efforts on another individual, theres no more play here for you. but again I recommend PSL spend its effort on state level efforts and show their model can work. there is some okayish ideas there they just need to prove them first but there is also a lot of things we already have available.
I can gather.
Not at all, it's entirely relevant and correct.
Can you elaborate? What did Marx fail to understand about Human Nature? What about Marxism goes against robust economies and systems? The largest economy in the world is run by Marxists today.
Weird personal attack, you have yet to make a concrete point, just wildly gesture.
Funny, you are almost correct. The fact that markets trend towards consolidation and monopolization makes themselves ripe for public ownership and central planning. This is exactly why Marx said Socialism succeeds Capitalism, the older the Capitalist system gets, and the more it consolidates itself, the more effective public siezure and central planning will be. The issue is that late stage Capitalism isn't yet Central Planning because it's still privately owned and operated for profit. This is something the article I linked you explains in detail, if you wish to learn more.
Additionally, your point on central planning collapsing AES is false. Many AES states still exist, in fact Central Planning is what caused the PRC to skyrocket in growth. It was also extremely effective in the USSR until later in its existence, where it struggled due to establishing planning by hand, and failing to transition to computerized planning adequately as the economy got increasingly complex, resulting in liberalization that further went against the efficiency of central planning. Despite this, the economy had great growth over its existence and dramatically lowered wealth inequality:
I'm not sure what you mean by Marxism being "idealistic," "inflexible," or how it "misses the point." What do you mean by any of that?