“Democracy sustains capitalism. Capitalism thrives in a democracy. And, right now, we are dealing with, as I called him at my speech on the Ellipse, a tyrant,” she said, referencing her rally last year on the White House Ellipse in Washington. “We used to compare the strength of our democracy to communist dictators. That’s what we’re dealing with right now in Donald Trump. And these titans of industry are not speaking up,”
Ma’am, with the greatest possible respect, Trump is as much a communist as the Nazis were socialists.
He’s redistributing wealth among the people, it’s just you’re not people
Fucking hell did she really need to throw in the red scare bullshit?
So the headline is misleading at best but i still feel like the ambiguity raised by inserting a term like that was just piss poor form and just about par for the course on both journalism and the messaging clarity of the DNC.
Completely agree
It’s the dumbest scare tactic "you want the government to provide for you rather than corporations?! Shame!
These people don’t even know what a communist is. They just have “red bad” drilled so far into their heads that it’s right next to “woke” as a catch-all term for bad things.
How the hell is Trump a communist? What is she smoking damn.
The support for capitalism over all else is expected, neoliberals do little else, but this level of delusion? Worrying.
Americans use the word communism as pejorative without having even slightest idea what it actually means. In this case she is speaking language that majority of Americans will understand
Propaganda against socialism and communism still going strong in the usa
Never went away, never will.
The country is founded on personal gain, it’s the foundation that it was bloodily built on from the very beginning. It would undermine everything that our current beneficiaries of this legacy stand for to even remotely embrace socialism.
The idea was to pump “rugged individualism” until there were no communities left, and then everyone who managed to shave off the most cash can fuck off to other countries or their own yachts in the ocean.
See fellows, if you still think Harris was a good candidate. This pretty much along with her support of Israel seals the deal.
Yeah we definitely did a lot better by splitting on her so Trump could get in office a second time, possibly as the last President of the US. Israel’s policy matters much more than what happens here at home, to me for sure.
Imperialism called, it wants its boomerang back.
So the DNC should not change at all and did nothing wrong, you’re saying?
Yup, You couldn’t pressure democrats or anything riiiiiiiiight. Trump is simply forcing Americans to feel a modicrum of the torture USA inflicts upon the world.
Trump is exhibiting classic dictator behaviors. Dictatorships are not exclusively right or left. History is full of dictators who use “communism” or fascism as a base.
This is where people conflate and confuse things like the FL Cubans who didn’t like Kamala because “she’s a socialist/Communist and I came from a country with a bad leader like that!”
They can’t distinguish a ruling style from the underlying governing structure.
A dictator is a dictator is a dictator.
And you can look at dictatorial regimes across the spectrum and it’s the authoritarianism and the dictator that is the common thread.
She still doesn’t get it. Capitalism inevitably leads to fascism. It’s a core feature.
She was never a good pick for the role. She should have faded into obscurity after losing the primary in 2020.
Capitalism leads to corporate monopolies leads to fascism.
Yes. I really don’t get it. Everybody has played monopoly but it seems like nobody has learned the lessons of the game.
No one ever finished playing monopoly. Everyone always quit in boredom and frustration before the end.
Unregulated capitalism CAN lead to fascism.
It doesn’t have to.
Just like communism all around the world has similarly basically always led to fascism and dictatorship, but it doesn’t have to.
Humans are always the problem. Plans don’t meet humans well.
Just like communism all around the world has similarly basically always led to fascism and dictatorshipv
It hasn’t “led” to anything; Marxist-Leninism is explicitly authoritarian. That said, it’s not fascism, that is not what that word means.
Unregulated capitalism CAN lead to fascism.
We’re on our second run of capitalism leading to fascism across the Western world in the exact same way along the exact same fault lines.
Plans don’t meet humans well.
An economic system isn’t a plan; it’s the context within which economic activity (including said plans) take place.
Fascism is a tool that capitalists use when capitalism is threatened by rising class consciousness. It’s not something that a society just “falls into.” Also, fascism is ideologically the opposite of communism. You can have a communist dictatorship, but you’re not going to find a fascist version.
And capitalism has killed millions more than the other ideologies too, even more than theocracies, all because people can’t afford food and medicine
No I don’t think your AND should be added to what I’m saying. You can say that elsewhere as it’s own standalone. Ty.
He’s a fascist dictator, not a communist one. And when the ‘titans of industry’ care more about their bottom line than democratic principles, that’s a sign to rally against them, not frame one’s argument with an echo of McCarthyism.
He has taken some very communist steps. The government has taken stake in Nvidia and Intel, as well as received voting shares in Nippon Steel. His government has literally started seizing the means of production…
Those aren’t even under the illusion of the workers owning the means of production, though.
It’s fascism, utilizing the pre-existing Christian fundamentalism of American conservatism. The fact it includes kleptocratic state capitalism doesn’t change the fascism, or its means of attaining power.
Yeah it’s similar to Putin’s Russia or the Uns’ North Korea, both of which are fascist regimes dressed up as other types of government.
To be honest, turning the cross, in the following decades, into a forbidden symbol, because of the christofacist evil that’s happening in the US right now, would be a boon
Yeah, we’re not talking about Lennon. We’re talking about Stalin.
I am the walrus.
Coo coo cachooooooo. I wanted to correct it, but I’m lazy and thanks for this
Complete misunderstanding of what the term even means. Like I said in another comment, it’s incorrect, antiquated boomer speak.
Jeepers, did you ever consider the fact that the Nazis have a better understanding of communication than you do? Do you understand about messaging and target audience? Do you think you’re the target audience for this statement? Do you think Kamal Harris is speaking to your personal understanding of what communism is? Or do you think she is speaking to 50 years of US propaganda? And the description that would be readily recognized by most republican voters? Do you think everything is about you?
So she’s still out there pandering to right wing voters? No wonder she lost.
She has to start losing 2028 at some point
/s
I mean how’s your voting block doing? The country is what it is, convincing people on the wrong side, to do the right thing, is politics at its core???
So good communication is lying to people instead of trying to achieve higher understanding? Just keep dumbing down discourse so long as it gets you some short-term gain?
Wow, with thought like that it’s no wonder Americans voted in fascism. You’re supposed to be on the “good” side? I see why Democrats are more than happy to smash leftists teeth in alongside their fascist counterparts. 'm sure you’ll get there when chips are down.
Let me critique this critique because the critique is not hard enough, and it also hurts my feelings more than the fascist stealing my government.
I mean she’s doing more than you are doing to oppose your enemies currently. Seriously have any of you armchair communist done anything? Are you guys still in fighting over labels? Like the fastest have pretty much taken full control and you are picking apart Kamala Harris‘s press briefing. And you’re saying, I am a fucking sympathizer.
Communism is the people taking control of production right? Not the fascist dictator.
This is a great question! You’re basically correct, but there are a few additional things. As far as the relationship between workers/consumers and the means of production is that of social ownership. Rather than an individual (or individuals) privately owning the means of production and purchasing labor from workers, the workers, consumers, and society as a whole collectively own and operate the means of production.
Additionally, the economic system is not a market system. Instead, investments, production, and allocation of capital goods (resources/products which are used either as ingredients for another product or as machinery/tools to produce another product) are planned, and not left up to “market forces”.
There are some aspects which are debated among communist philosophers. One major aspect is whether the economic planning would/should be centrally or decentrally done. The USSR had a primarily centrally planned economy. Others (myself included) advocate for a decentrally planned system.
Some things, which are usually stated, as being part of communism, are that society is moneyless, stateless, and classless. Starting with moneyless, if goods are exchanged on a market, an intermediate good is usually used specifically for exchange purposes (currency/money). If goods are not exchanged on a market, money is less necessary, so it is expected to be phased out.
Many philosophers say that the state’s purpose is to “ease” tensions between classes, and enforce economic policies. If there are no classes, and goods and services are “produced based on ability, and distributed based on need”, the primary purposes of the state no longer exist, so it would likely “whither away”. Anarchists generally argue for an immediate dissolution of the state.
The keen eyed, among you readers, might wonder how the planning could be done without a state, especially if the planning is central. I would be interested in the answer to that, myself. There are a few books talking about a post-capitalist system. I recommend No Bosses and Inventing the Future.
Hope this helps!
Yes, very well described. Thanks
That’s what’s called “crony capitalism”, in this case. Communism is something completely different.
Nah this is USSR style government at its core. Hes running all the classic dictator playbooks but a lot of this was ripped from USSR
Some would say he’s a commie fascist tankie dictator.
Yeah, uneducated people might say something like that.
Education is the opiate of the masses.
hes sewing chaos that means hes actually a anarchist
deleted by creator
“Trump bad, just as bad as communism, did I already say communism bad? Votes please”
Harris is certainly well educated enough to know that Trump is not a communist; presumably these dipshit comments are for right-wingers, because she’s trying to appeal to them again.
Goddamned neoliberals
I think she’s parroting her donor’s concerns. They don’t like the direction the wind is blowing. Mamdani has them spooked.
They literally exist just to kill leftism in the united states now. No other benefits offered
She’ll say anything but criticizing Israel. That’s why she lost.
hilarious to hear Americans use terms like Socialist, Communist, Fascist even at the levels of supposedly highly educated and clearly they have no idea what they are talking about.
Fascist
weeeeelllllll… If you’re in a place where you could throw a rock and hit one, maybe? /s BTW
A fascist dictator, not a communist dictator.
Misleading, editorialized title. Any worthwhile journalist wouldn’t quote somebody on words they didn’t literally say.
She did literally say that
She literally didn’t.
We used to compare the strength of our democracy to communist dictators. That’s what we’re dealing with right now in Donald Trump.
Can it be presumed it’s what she meant? Arguably. But presumptions are not quotes, and it’s not acceptable to attribute a quote to someone that didn’t say the words you are claiming they did.
That’s what we’re dealing with right now in Donald Trump.
What could this quote be referring to if not the prior sentence
Your inference on what she meant doesn’t change what she literally said.
You are defending her comments like MAGA would be Trump’s or Kirk.
It seems like you don’t remember what regular journalism used to be, because it was absolutely proper journalism to splice together pieces of sentences that make a shorter version for a title, as long as it was clear that the original really did mean that - which is the case here. The only issue here is the quotes, it would typically be “we’re dealing with (…) a communist dictator” or “we’re dealing with” “a communist dictator.” Your nitpick that the exact sentence wasn’t sliced up this exact way is misplaced, you’re not advocating for precise quotes, you’re just advocating for plausible deniability, like someone’s going to say “I didn’t say that, you don’t have a soundbite of me saying Trump is a communist dictator.” That’s just legalese, and that’s denying the meaning of the job, because actual journalism isn’t supposed to be a parrot job, this is exactly what it should be. It is, in fact, what she literally said.
Nope. Quotes don’t work like that either. You don’t get to just piecemeal the words in whatever order you want and claim “They literally said that!”.
Actual journalism deals with and communicates facts without distortion. Sometimes that’s a “parrot job”, and many times that includes personal insight, but it can never compromise on accuracy in reporting what actually happened. That’s lazy, unprofessional, and a threat to the medium as a whole. Similarly, you insisting falsehood is “fact” doesn’t make it so. It just erodes any credibility or merit your words carry, weakening your future statements that much more. You discredit yourself and everyone else that shares your stance.
And, again, nothing I’ve said has anything to do with what she meant. I’m not saying your claims of her intent are wrong. This has nothing to do with “deniability” or “legalese”, and trying to frame my point with some sort of counter-agenda is entirely unfitting.
For what an actually credible title could look like -
Harris Likens Trump to “communist dictators”
Accurate, and even shorter. Took me all of 2 seconds. Whoever wrote the title of the article is a hack that’s not worth the effort being put in to defend here.
What you’re asking for is state propaganda, that’s where it goes, that’s where it is right now. It teaches politicians to spin longer phrases that clearly sound like promises and denouncing bad things so they can then deny everything the next day, because “that’s not what I said.” And on the other hand, it punishes those who make a short, blunt comment and then get hounded about the exact word they use, not allowing for any explanation - or any mistake. That’s how you get nations refusing to call something a genocide, and Nazis pretending to be upset at getting called Nazis, that’s how you get any left winger denigrated because they used a word you decided was not right, while denying the meaning of a word that a right winger said. You erase the importance of meaning by focusing on the importance of an exact quote while denying an interpretation. It teaches the media that asking questions and making editorial interpretations is forbidden because only the exact phrase from the press release is permitted, making it easier to manipulate the message being put out, because copy-pasting is easier than interpreting, and it reduces variations that expose the gaps and underline the problems.
You yourself right now are denying that this is really what she said because that’s not her exact words, leaving an opening to deny the entire comment - because that’s how it goes, not necessarily from you, but from anyone who comes after that. Hell, you’re already dismissing whoever wrote this as a hack because you don’t like that they didn’t use an exact quote, even though the meaning is absolutely right and you know it. Even your suggestion will be met with “but what was the exact quote” from people who will promptly ignore everything you say that’s longer than one sentence, and what you thought was more correct than this title will be deemed not correct enough. Like it or not, this is historically how journalism did things right, this absolutely was how quotes worked, until Fox News had to argue in court that only an idiot would believe they were news, and then nothing came out of it except Fox getting more power. This is how people keep moving toward more autoritarianism, that is what they have been doing, and that is what is happening now. Diversity in journalism is a good thing, and what you are defending only pushes toward uniformity.
We’re dealing with a fucking menace of a president. That’s the important thing to focus on, goddammit!
This is the akin to the pedantic gymnastic arguments that people keep using trying to protect themselves from accepting Kirk’s fascist bullshit. He literally said a bunch of heinous fascistic shit, and people will argue “context”. You’re arguing pedantics for no good goddamned reason.
Her first sentence involves the second, and vice versa. They are not exclusive of each other. They are two clauses of a singular thought. Stop. FFS
For someone so against meaningless arguments, you are quite insistent on continuing the argument about things I’m not talking about. For the fourth time now - it doesn’t matter what she meant. Quotes in journalism (especially in headlines) are for verbatim statements, not paraphrased inferences.
Double quotes are distinct from single quotes in some journalistic style guides and can be used this way.
