Is Kamala Harris a Marxist or just incoherent? It's not irrelevent, it will still pervade the thoughts of the left.

Posted by $ Olduglycarl 2 months, 2 weeks ago to Philosophy
9 comments | Share | Flag

I post this, even now, on the eve of certain change...good change, we suspect; but whether Trump or kamala biden win...we will still have to battle this brain set, this inside out, backwards and upside down thoughtlessness.

Posted on November 2, 2020 by Paul Mirengoff in Equality, Income inequality, Kamala Harris
Is Kamala Harris a Marxist or just incoherent?

I don’t know. The main thing I know about Harris is that she’s an opportunist. If you don’t think so, check with some of the people she prosecuted in California.

The following statements by Harris have been cited as evidence that she’s a Marxist:

Equality suggests, oh, everyone should get the same amount. The problem with that, not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me.

In other words, it wouldn’t be enough for every American to receive the same yearly income because some Americans would still have less money.

Harris contrasts “equality” with “equity,” about which she says:

It’s about giving people the resources and the support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing and then compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.

These statements, individually and collectively, do seem Marxist. They also seem incoherent.

On the one hand, Harris seems to want everyone to have equal resources and support so they can compete on an equal footing, which is how she views equity. At the same time, she defines equitable treatment as everyone ending up at the same place. But if there is competition, then everyone will not end up at the same place. There will be winners and losers. Will another massive transfer of resources be required?

Just what is Harris’ vision of an equitable society? Is it one in which there is a massive redistribution not just of wealth but of “support,” so that everyone starts out equally, followed by competition? Or is it one in which everyone ends up at the same place?

Both visions are harrowing, of course. Both entail totalitarianism.

Harris’ definitions also seem confused. Equality is a state in which everyone is equal. This seems to be what Harris is talking about when she discusses “equity.” But Harris claims there is a “big difference” between equality and equity.

Equity means fairness and impartiality. Equitable treatment means that everyone is treated fairly and impartially. It doesn’t mean that “we all end up at the same place,” which seems to be Harris’ test for equitable treatment.

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 1 week ago
    Wasn't that method tried by the Plymouth settlement? They almost starved to death under Kamaliar's plan but switched to a meritocracy in time and the colony thrived under capitalism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 25n56il4 2 months, 1 week ago
    Hey OUC...the happiest face to greet me at the Polls today was Black! Of course, I am not 'white' either being American Indian, but I didn't know any of the other people there and I've been voting at that place for 48 years! Happily they all thanked me for voting!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo