We turn to Kamala Harris’s position on Israel’s war on Gaza, which many are calling a genocide. After she was asked about calls to condition U.S. arms shipments to Israel by CNN reporter Dana Bash, Harris refused to consider halting the flow of weapons and instead affirmed her support of Israel. This position violates both federal and international law, argues Palestinian American political analyst Yousef Munayyer, and, coupled with her campaign’s denial of a requested Palestinian American speaking spot from “uncommitted” voters at the DNC, he warns that “Harris could be worse than Biden” when it comes to U.S. support for Israel.
I didn’t say the greens are as bad as the dems, I said they’re not the best available option any more than dems are.
Im not gonna rake you over the coals too much for it, but maybe the language around ballot access and chances isn’t the best way to pull people to your particular electoral construction given it’s the same set of ideas that supporters of the democrats are using against both of us.
They use that argument because it’s valid and holds weight. The only other option besides bringing in a third party with ballot access is violent revolution and that was a lot cooler of an idea before drones existed.
If it’s so valid then why aren’t you voting democrat?
My problem with the idea that we all ought to vote for some party whose policies and politics are far from our own in order to win isn’t that it denies the blossoming of everyone’s special flower ideas, but that it collapses all the effects of a third party into winning and losing.
Getting a third party to win is the first step into breaking the US political duopoly and fixing the broken electoral system. The first changes a third party will make is regulations that allow third party wins in the future. It’s about making progress towards the left. Democrats do not represent progress, but an upholding of the same tired political duopoly that gives capitalists power. The green party, regardless of whatever ideals you still hate about them, are very intent on changing the electoral system and ending the duopoly.
So that’s a real specific problem I have with the greens: they have no theory of power.
Green politics of all stripes are predicated on, at best, recognizing that there is a system in place and that if it were different, things could be different. I tend to take issue with the specific causes and effects involved in the things greens want to change up, but even if I didn’t, the party has no idea of where the political power it purports to desire to wield comes from.
Democrats and republicans have clear understandings of that. The different weird communist parties have understanding of where they think political power comes from.
Green conceptions of power are inscrutable.
What you just wrote is a great example of that. Where does the power to enact any of the changes you claim greens want to make on the electoral system flow from? From being elected into positions in government by the same system that keeps people from exercising their political will?
Part of why even looney lefties like myself dismiss the greens is because at the most serious level they’re still just trafficking in “well, if i was in charge” rhetoric.
I mean, yeah. The only way to reform the system is from within the system. Here in lies the ultimate issue with the left: all I ever hear is criticisms and no solutions. We have two options, reform or revolution. Revolution is nearly impossible. So if it’s reform, people need to be elected into the system to make the changes. There is no reform without elections. Even if we were to organize something big like a general strike, it would only make the bourgeoisie afraid. Real changes are legislative and that means elections. Unless you’ve got a better idea, in which case, please share with the class.
When I brought up theory of power it wasn’t to handwave away the strategic value of participating in elections, but to specifically critique the lack thereof on the part of the greens.
Winning an election isn’t enough. Simply participating in an election as a voter, party member or organizer or official is also not enough.
Under a theory of worker power like what we see from looney lefties of yore and today, election participation in all these roles is useful because it builds worker power and unity.
I didn’t say the greens are as bad as the dems, I said they’re not the best available option any more than dems are.
Im not gonna rake you over the coals too much for it, but maybe the language around ballot access and chances isn’t the best way to pull people to your particular electoral construction given it’s the same set of ideas that supporters of the democrats are using against both of us.
They use that argument because it’s valid and holds weight. The only other option besides bringing in a third party with ballot access is violent revolution and that was a lot cooler of an idea before drones existed.
If it’s so valid then why aren’t you voting democrat?
My problem with the idea that we all ought to vote for some party whose policies and politics are far from our own in order to win isn’t that it denies the blossoming of everyone’s special flower ideas, but that it collapses all the effects of a third party into winning and losing.
Getting a third party to win is the first step into breaking the US political duopoly and fixing the broken electoral system. The first changes a third party will make is regulations that allow third party wins in the future. It’s about making progress towards the left. Democrats do not represent progress, but an upholding of the same tired political duopoly that gives capitalists power. The green party, regardless of whatever ideals you still hate about them, are very intent on changing the electoral system and ending the duopoly.
So that’s a real specific problem I have with the greens: they have no theory of power.
Green politics of all stripes are predicated on, at best, recognizing that there is a system in place and that if it were different, things could be different. I tend to take issue with the specific causes and effects involved in the things greens want to change up, but even if I didn’t, the party has no idea of where the political power it purports to desire to wield comes from.
Democrats and republicans have clear understandings of that. The different weird communist parties have understanding of where they think political power comes from.
Green conceptions of power are inscrutable.
What you just wrote is a great example of that. Where does the power to enact any of the changes you claim greens want to make on the electoral system flow from? From being elected into positions in government by the same system that keeps people from exercising their political will?
Part of why even looney lefties like myself dismiss the greens is because at the most serious level they’re still just trafficking in “well, if i was in charge” rhetoric.
I mean, yeah. The only way to reform the system is from within the system. Here in lies the ultimate issue with the left: all I ever hear is criticisms and no solutions. We have two options, reform or revolution. Revolution is nearly impossible. So if it’s reform, people need to be elected into the system to make the changes. There is no reform without elections. Even if we were to organize something big like a general strike, it would only make the bourgeoisie afraid. Real changes are legislative and that means elections. Unless you’ve got a better idea, in which case, please share with the class.
I’m not against taking part in elections.
When I brought up theory of power it wasn’t to handwave away the strategic value of participating in elections, but to specifically critique the lack thereof on the part of the greens.
Winning an election isn’t enough. Simply participating in an election as a voter, party member or organizer or official is also not enough.
Under a theory of worker power like what we see from looney lefties of yore and today, election participation in all these roles is useful because it builds worker power and unity.