For those committed to socialist politics, supporting Kamala Harris for president in 2024 may seem contradictory. After all, Harris served as San Francisco district attorney from 2004 to 2011. criticize. Although she opposes the death penalty, she has been criticized for refusing to seek it in cases of police killings. While serving as California’s attorney general from 2011 to 2017, Harris oversaw numerous marijuana-related convictions and defended California’s three-strikes law that was criticized for leading to mass incarceration. She also faced backlash for her office’s stance on prison labor, although she later distanced herself from that stance. On the other, she played a key role in securing $25 billion in compensation for homeowners affected by the mortgage crisis, refused to defend California’s same-sex marriage ban, and worked to address a backlog of untested rape kits. As a U.S. Senator, she supported significant criminal justice reform, including co-sponsoring the Marijuana Justice Act to decriminalize marijuana federally and expunge past convictions.
Supporting Harris from a socialist perspective makes sense because she presents a viable path toward progressive politics. While Joe Biden has remained centrist, further arming Israel, failing to codify Roe v. Wade, and maintaining neoliberal economic positions that ignore the needs of the working class, Harris has shown progressive leanings. She could be pushed further to the left, embracing economic populism and addressing systemic injustices that are crucial to countering Trump’s far-right agenda.
The adoption of strategic positions by socialist groups and individuals in response to the ebb and flow of bourgeois electoral politics is not a new phenomenon. These debates have existed since the days of the International Working Men’s Association, when Marx advocated engaging in electoral politics to gain political power and using the state apparatus to implement socialist reforms. In the Instructions for the Delegates to the Geneva Congress (1866), Marx argued for the need for the working class to participate in political action, including participation in elections. Political participation, he argued, was crucial to reducing harm, obtaining immediate benefits for the working class, and creating the means for enabling future revolutionary change.
Likewise, Rosa Luxemburg wrote in the introductory paragraph of Social Reform or Revolution:
At first glance, the title of this work may come as a surprise. Can social democrats oppose reforms? Can we oppose social revolution, transformation of the existing order, our ultimate goal, to social reform? of course not. The daily struggle for reform, for the improvement of the situation of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, for democratic institutions provides the Social Democratic Party with the only means of participating in the proletarian class struggle and working in this direction. The seizure of political power and the suppression of wage labor. There is an inextricable connection between social democratic social reforms and revolution. The struggle for reform is its means; social revolution, its goal.
Luxembourg particularly emphasized that an important point to note is the ultimate goal of such an organization. In the same book, she writes that “the current state is not a ‘society’ representing the ‘rising working class’. It itself is representative of capitalist society. This is a class state. Its reform measures are therefore not the exercise of “social control”, i.e. control of the free functioning of society in its labor process. They are forms of control exercised over capital production by the class organization of capital. So-called social reforms are implemented in the interests of capital. But as she later pointed out, these were tools of bourgeois control that should be abandoned during the revolutionary struggle—not while the proletariat was still hurt and oppressed by the conditions of the capitalist mode of production. In her words, engaging in electoral politics, voting strategically, working through legal structures, and seizing opportunities to organize are “the attitudes of the proletariat within the confines of the capitalist state,” not their attitudes when they cast off these chains .
Within this framework, we can revisit the LEV (Less Evil Vote) Eight-Point Brief written by John Halle and Noam Chomsky for the 2016 election cycle. They argue that those focused on radical social change can significantly reduce the potential harm caused by far-right policies and thereby protect vulnerable groups. Furthermore, it enables the left to continue organizing and promoting progressive change in a less hostile political environment. LEV can therefore be viewed as a tactical move consistent with the broader goal of achieving long-term revolutionary goals by preventing immediate and severe setbacks.
One issue that immediately addresses her past incarceration record and the glaring harm the prison-industrial complex inflicts on communities of color is the federal rescheduling of marijuana 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 schedule (Schedule II, III, IV or V) , recognizing its medical uses and reducing regulatory restrictions. Through this reform, Harris will also have the opportunity to pardon convictions related to marijuana use and possession, thereby taking steps to repair some of the harm she has done to communities of color.
Additionally, we can expect Harris to make significant reforms in the area of reproductive justice—especially in the context of repealing Roe v. Wade and strengthening conservative control of the Supreme Court. Not only has she made repeated commitments to reproductive health, but she has also received strong support from groups working to codify reproductive freedoms into law.
Harris’s stance on international politics is murkier — but there are some clues. Harris has been less tough on Israel than Biden, and her absence from Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress drew media attention. Separately, Harris renewed her call for a ceasefire and hinted at a policy shift between her and President Biden. Her more progressive stance overall, coupled with her legal background, may also indicate that she prefers to follow ICJ rulings as the compass for U.S. foreign policy.
Endorsing Kamala Harris for the 2024 presidential election is a strategic move consistent with socialist principles and politics. Despite her past, Harris proposes a viable path toward progressive politics, offering opportunities to address systemic injustices and advance economic populism. Her potential to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, promote reproductive justice, and adopt a more humanitarian approach to international relations are all areas where she could make significant progressive changes. Therefore, from a socialist perspective, supporting Harris is not an oxymoron but a strategic step toward broader revolutionary goals.
Further reading on electronic international relations
