Endorsing Kamala Harris for her 2024 presidential bid may seem contradictory to those committed to socialist politics. After all, Harris served as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. During that time, she implemented anti-truancy initiatives aimed at reducing truancy, which was criticized for disproportionately affecting low-income families and people of color. Despite her opposition to the death penalty, her refusal to seek it in the case of a police officer’s killer was criticized. As California’s attorney general from 2011 to 2017, Harris oversaw numerous marijuana-related convictions and championed California’s three-missile law, drawing criticism for contributing to mass incarceration. She has also faced criticism for her office’s stance on prison labor, though she has since distanced herself from that position. On the other hand, she played a crucial role in securing a $25 billion settlement for homeowners affected by the mortgage crisis, refused to defend California’s ban on same-sex marriage, and worked to reduce the number of untested rape kits. As a U.S. senator, she supported major criminal justice reforms, including co-sponsoring the Marijuana Justice Act to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level and expunge prior convictions.
Supporting Harris from a socialist perspective makes sense because she presents a viable path to progressive politics. Unlike Joe Biden, who has maintained a centrist approach, has still armed Israel, has not codified Roe v. Wade, and maintained a neoliberal economic position who neglects the needs of the working classHarris has shown progressive inclinations. She can be pushed further left to embrace economic populism and address systemic injusticeswhich is essential to countering Trump’s far-right agenda.
The fact that socialist groups and individuals adopt strategic positions in response to the fluctuations of bourgeois electoral politics is not a new phenomenon. These debates have existed since the days of the International Workingmen’s Association, where Marx advocated participation in electoral politics to gain political power and use the state apparatus to implement socialist reforms. In the “Instructions to the Delegates to the Geneva Congress” (1866), Marx argued for the need for the working class to engage in political action, including by participating in elections. He believed that political engagement was essential to reduce harm, provide immediate benefits to the working class, and create the conditions for future revolutionary change.
Similarly, Rosa Luxemburg, in the introductory paragraph of Social Reform or Revolution, writes:
At first sight the title of this work may seem surprising. Can Social Democracy be against reforms? Can the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our ultimate goal, be opposed to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily struggle for reforms, for the improvement of the conditions of the workers within the framework of the existing social order and for democratic institutions, offers Social Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class war and of working towards the ultimate goal: the conquest of political power and the abolition of wage labor. Between social reforms and revolution there exists for Social Democracy an indissoluble bond. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its goal.
What is important to note, and Luxemburg emphasizes this in particular, is the ultimate goal of this type of organization. In the same work, she writes: “The present state is not a ‘society’ representing the ‘rising working class’. It is itself the representative of capitalist society. It is a class state. Consequently, its reform measures are not an application of ‘social control’, that is, of the control of society working freely in its labor process. They are forms of control applied by the class organization of Capital to the production of Capital. The so-called social reforms are implemented in the interests of Capital.” But as she later notes, it is the tools of bourgeois control that must be abandoned during the revolutionary struggle – not when the proletariat is still injured and oppressed by the conditions of the capitalist mode of production. In his words, participating in electoral politics, voting strategically, working through the legal structure and seizing opportunities to organize is “the attitude of the proletariat when it finds itself within the limits of the capitalist state,” not when it is freed from those chains.
In this context, we can revisit the Eight-point case for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting) written by John Halle and Noam Chomsky, for the 2016 election cycle. They argue that those who care about radical social change greatly reduce the potential harm inflicted by far-right policies, thereby protecting vulnerable communities. Furthermore, it allows the left to continue organizing and pushing for progressive change in a less hostile political environment. LEV can therefore be seen as a tactical move that aligns with the broader goal of achieving long-term revolutionary goals while avoiding immediate and serious setbacks.
One measure that could immediately address her history of incarceration and the extensive harm the prison industrial complex has done to communities of color is the federal reclassification of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This process involves moving cannabis from its current classification as a Schedule I controlled substance (which indicates a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use) to a lower category (Schedule II, III, IV, or V) that recognizes its medical uses and reduces regulatory restrictions. With this reform, Harris would also have the ability to grant pardons for sentences related to cannabis use and possession, taking steps to repair some of the harm she has done to communities of color.
Additionally, Harris can be expected to make significant reforms in the area of reproductive justice—especially in the context of the repeal of Roe v. Wade and increased conservative control of the Supreme Court. Not only has she made repeated commitments to reproductive health, she has also received significant support of groups working to codify reproductive freedoms into law.
Harris’ position on international politics is more ambiguous, but there are indications. Harris is less hawkish on Israel than Bidenand his conspicuous absence when Netanyahu addressed the US Congress attracted media attention. Additionally, Harris repeated his calls for a ceasefire and signal a change in policy She and President Biden have more progressive positions. Her more progressive position, in general, combined with her legal experience, could also indicate that she is more willing to follow the ICJ’s decisions as a compass for U.S. foreign policy.
Endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election is a strategic move that is consistent with socialist principles and policies. Despite her past, Kamala Harris represents a viable path to progressive politics, with opportunities to address systemic injustices and push for economic populism. Her potential to reclassify cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act, advance reproductive justice, and embrace a more humanitarian approach to international relations are areas where she can make substantial progressive changes. Thus, from a socialist perspective, endorsing Kamala Harris is not a contradiction but a strategic step toward achieving broader revolutionary goals.
Further reading on electronic international relations
