Bernie Sanders Rocks!

[RichardAWilson]

Go Bernie!


Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was a featured speaker at the United Steel Workers 2011 conference in Las Vegas.

Sanders focused much of his speech on the Social Security system, blasting suggestions by Democrats and Republicans alike that, for example, we should adjust the cost of living adjustment to cut Social Security payments to working class Americans or raise the retirement age.

“When [Social Security] was developed, 50 percent of seniors lived in poverty. Today, poverty among seniors is too high, but that number is ten percent. Social Security has done exactly what it was designed to do!” he thundered, defending the program.

Today, Sanders announced that he will introduce legislation that would strengthen Social Security without cutting benefits to any of its beneficiaries.

Sanders’ legislation would eliminate the income cap that currently exists in the payroll tax that does not tax income above $106,800:

To keep Social Security strong for another 75 years, Sanders’ legislation would apply the same payroll tax already paid by more than nine out of 10 Americans to those with incomes over $250,000 a year. [...]

Under Sanders’ legislation, Social Security benefits would be untouched. The system would be fully funded by making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax already assessed on those with incomes up to $106,800 a year.

Sanders points out that President Obama himself endorsed this idea on the campaign trail in 2008.


“What we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system. Right now, somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax, whereas the majority…pays payroll tax on 100 percent of their income. I’ve said that was not fair,” said Obama during the campaign.

The Social Security system is currently fully funded until 2037. Lifting the payroll tax cap would virtually eliminate funding shortfalls the program would experience over the next 75 years.

[RGacky3]

This guy fights and fights and fights and fights.

[jake williams]

Sanders is like the bestest social democrat in the US Senate, not, of course, to suggest that that's high praise. He's certainly a good guy.

[Comrade1]

Hes the best of the enemy.

[RGacky3]

You put him in a European country he'd be a socialist, he's in America of coarse he's a "socialist" (social-democrat).

I don't consider him an enemy at all, he was also one of the main pushers of cooperatives in Vermont.


Sanders is like the bestest social democrat in the US Senate, not, of course, to suggest that that's high praise. He's certainly a good guy.

He's the ONLY social-democrat, and the fact that he made it to the US Senate, never got corrupted, continues to fight the uphill fight and being the only voice for the working class in washington, deserves high praise.

[Comrade1]

Hes in the US congress, hes a reformist, enough said.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Bernie Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time." - Howard Dean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#cite_note-18)

Sanders has endorsed every Democratic nominee for president of the United States since 1992.

A great hero of the working class!

[Comrade1]

"Bernie Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time." - Howard Dean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#cite_note-18)

Sanders has endorsed every Democratic nominee for president of the United States since 1992.

A great hero of the working class!
Thank you.

[RGacky3]

Well, he could just NOT vote, or he could side the the republicans ....

[Comrade1]

Well, he could just NOT vote, or he could side the the republicans ....
I see not difference between democrats or republicans. So I think not voting, is a good option.

[La Comédie Noire]

Bernie Sanders is an anomaly that time will correct.

What a damn inspiring blip on the radar he is though!

[Comrade1]

Bernie Sanders is an anomaly that time will correct.

What a damn inspiring blip on the radar he is though!
I find no inspiration from him as he himself is a democrat, he might call himself an "Independent" but as the man above said, he sided with the democrats 98% of the time. He is just another Reformist who wants too keep some entitlement programs. Nothing that has the "wow" factor.

[La Comédie Noire]

I find no inspiration from him as he himself is a democrat, he might call himself an "Independent" but as the man above said, he sided with the democrats 98% of the time. He is just another Reformist who wants too keep some entitlement programs. Nothing that has the "wow" factor.

Comrade1 is too cool for Reformism. :cool:

[RGacky3]

He is just another Reformist who wants too keep some entitlement programs. Nothing that has the "wow" factor.

He's pushed for single payer, for funding to cooperatives, to nationalizing the banks, to breaking them up.

Yeah he's a reformist, but common man, credit where credit is due.

[¿Que?]

So what is the argument by conservatives against eliminating payroll tax caps?

[RGacky3]

Just "JOB CREATORS!!!!!!," but mainly just ignoring the argument, you should hear the gymnastics that republicans have to do to get out of those questions at town halls.

[La Comédie Noire]

I've actually heard a few Republicans in my time argue for taking the cap off, of course this was in tandem with raising the retirement age.

[¿Que?]

Just "JOB CREATORS!!!!!!," but mainly just ignoring the argument, you should hear the gymnastics that republicans have to do to get out of those questions at town halls.
Yeah, I've seen Mitt Romney get hassled for stating a simple fact of American corporate law, that they do in fact count as people in various ways. See, they're starting to get bold and trying to sell to the people the shit that they already did behind everybody's back.

[RGacky3]

Its only because the American people are starting to get some class consciousness.

[RGacky3]

Looking at sanders you should also look at the stuff he did as mayor, setting up tons of non-profit industries, providing incentives to cooperatives, and large cooperatives, like electric companies, manufacturing and so on.

[ComradeMan]

I don't know much about him but he sounds like a great guy, at least as far as politicians are concerned.

[RichardAWilson]

Sanders isn't the only Social-Democrat in Congress. I also happen to like Dennis, even though he's in the House of Representatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich


After Kucinich refused to sell Muni Light, Cleveland's publicly owned electric utility, the Cleveland mafia put out a hit on Kucinich.

A hit man from Maryland planned to shoot him in the head during the Columbus Day Parade, but the plot fell apart when Kucinich was hospitalized and missed the event.

In 1998 the council honored him for having the "courage and foresight" to stand up to the banks and saving the city an estimated $195 million between 1985 and 1995.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Sanders is a pretty cool cat as far bourgeois politicians go.

[Madslatter]

Sanders is a pretty cool cat as far bourgeois politicians go.
This

I think Sanders, HERE AND NOW, is one of the more important allies we American socialists have. When the US working class gets some real class consciousness and starts really fighting, he'll be unnecessary. However, currently, as such a vocal advocate for working class, in the Senate of all places, he has done a lot to bring people into supporting socialism - they're all still reformist (like him), but that can change. And leftism in the US is weak enough that even a bunch of reformist social democrats beats the hell out of the current political atmosphere.

[ellipsis]

He's a social democrat? ZOMG thanks for letting me know.

[Tim Finnegan]

Hes in the US congress, hes a reformist, enough said.
Eh, right now a reformist somebody is as good as a revolutionary nobody. One Tony Benn is probably worth the entire SWP. http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif

[RGacky3]

When the US working class gets some real class consciousness and starts really fighting, he'll be unnecessary.

I think he'd probably join the movement.

I did not know that about Dennis, thats pretty awesome.

[Sensible Socialist]

I'm not well versed on Sanders' voting record, but he doesn't seem to be causing any harm within the political system, insofar as sustaining continued attacks on the working class. He is one of the few that will speak for hours on end about issues no one else will dare to touch, and he's certainly a better person to have in that position than a hard-core reactionary.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Looking at sanders you should also look at the stuff he did as mayor, setting up tons of non-profit industries, providing incentives to cooperatives, and large cooperatives, like electric companies, manufacturing and so on.

He tweaked the capitalist system to a very small extent in his little neck of the world.. not even to the extent of the sewer socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer_Socialism).

But the burning need for humanity is to overthrow the capitalist system in its entirety, and abolish classes, currency, commodity production and countries along with it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I also happen to like Dennis, even though he's in the House of Representatives.

The role of Dennis Kucinich is to corral disgruntled folks back into the acceptable fold of bourgeois politics. It usually goes like this:

1. Kucinich runs for president, using a lot of left sounding rhetoric.
2. A number of left leaning students and workers looker for change support and join the campaign. People get involved who would have probably ignored the political circus otherwise.
3. Kucinich loses the primary.
4. Kucinich endorses the winning candidate, and his supporters go over to support them, on the basis of "lesser evilism."

The working class has no friends in the den of wolves that is the U.S. Congress.

[RichardAWilson]

To disregard a progressive because they're affiliated with the Democrats is a huge error.

[jake williams]

Yeah, I've seen Mitt Romney get hassled for stating a simple fact of American corporate law, that they do in fact count as people in various ways.
Romney's comments in that particular instance have exactly zero to do with the legal concept of corporate personhood, a point I'm sick of hearing the left mix up. What he was talking about was the fact that corporate taxes are really taxes on people in that you're taxing profits which shareholders would otherwise get back. This has nothing to do with corporations "in and of themselves" being legal persons, a fact which even many on the right, libertarians especially, object to.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

To disregard a progressive because they're affiliated with the Democrats is a huge error.

Capitalism ceased to be progressive long ago. To refer to any of its representatives as "progressive" is absurd.

Obama was (and still is by some) considered to be a "progressive." The main thing he's doing is progressing the war on the working class.

This is why its problematic to view things in terms of political wing ("left" or "right") instead of class content. A lefty bourgeois politician and a rightist bourgeois politician are both still bourgeois politicians.

[svenne]

In a situation like today, even the reformist social democrats are on the same side as us. But as soon as a real class movement arises, with the basis in workers autonomy (in the form of a party, the historical party, a union, and so on), he's gonna get a lot less nice. I guess some people in Wisconsin figured that out a couple of months ago, but i can't really say i know all about that issue.
If something; the working class - and the radical left - should use him, and never the other way around.

[RichardAWilson]

Obama has never been a progressive. His voting record wasn't even progressive when he was in Congress. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has maintained a very progressive voting record and has introduced pro-worker legislation.

[eric922]

I don't care what anyone says. I like Sanders, he is a good man and does stand up for the working class. His actions(and Kucininch's) actually have real world benefits for the working people of this country. I'd rather have one person who is actually making a real positive impact, than a 100 people talking about revolution

The fact of the matter is that America is a long way off from a legitimate revolution and reforms are the best we can get. I'll be happy with anything that helps working people whether they come from a reformer or not.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Does anyone know the source for this quote of Lenin's?


Violence is not a sausage you can chose, hot or cold, at the counter of History.

Just wondering, is all...

[Dumb]

Sanders isn't the only Social-Democrat in Congress. I also happen to like Dennis, even though he's in the House of Representatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich



In 1998 the council honored him for having the "courage and foresight" to stand up to the banks and saving the city an estimated $195 million between 1985 and 1995.

I've never cared for Kucinich because of some inside info from an old (and hard-core liberal) friend who lived in Kucinich's neighborhood in Cleveland back when he was mayor; apparently, it was on the hush-hush that Kucinich was beating his wife. Granted, that's hearsay, but having heard that, I can't approach the name without prejudice.

[RichardAWilson]

I don't see that as being true. Dennis seems too well mannered (gentleman) and soft spoken to be a wife beater.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Mealy-mouthed leftist reformism, especially on a forum like this, makes me want to vomit.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aJBRJ51iMoA/SLmWylYs_7I/AAAAAAAAAGQ/dt9uqourKp4/s400/Reformism.jpg

[RichardAWilson]

Well, Marx did say that Socialists should work toward reform. As long as the struggle for reform doesn't lead to a misunderstanding of the ultimate aim, Socialists everywhere should work toward pro-worker reform.

[RGacky3]

If everything but total absolute revolution is a waste of time, and its actually not a revolution unless its global (Many Leninist believe this), then whats the point.

We should be fighting to make things better and better and also toward revolution.

[RichardAWilson]

I know it's rather rehashing: "That's what Marx thought." I know I've said that a few times. Let's face it, he was an intellectual genius and revolutionary. -

Marxism = Struggle for Revolution (Long Term), Embrace Reform (Short Term).

As long as the struggle for reform doesn't take precedence over the ultimate objective (I.e. Revolution), the fight for reform is a good foundation for learning and acquiring organizational skills, tactics and strategies.

To the degree those reforms spread class consciousness, there's much that can be gained from them. To the degree that those reforms make it easier for workingmen to gather together and demand change, there's much that can be gained from them.

Hell, Marx even said that, assuming we can be on guard against the temptation of abandoning the revolution in favor of reform, we should join hands and work with the reformists toward progressive change.

I don't see anything wrong with such an approach. We can have the cake today and the icing tomorrow vs. nothing today and nothing tomorrow. - Which is what we'll be getting tomorrow if we don't walk side by side with working class interests. -

Nothing is exactly what we've gotten (thus far) - because of sectarianism and inflexibility.

We're not in Russia and this isn't 1917. Even if you're a Leninist (Trotsky supporter), Maoist, Stalinist, whatever, those men led revolutions during a different time, with different circumstances and in different (underdeveloped) countries. The rules of the game change when you're dealing with industrialized economies. To an extent, political revolution can even be carried on from within the system (depending on the degree of democratic governance in your respective country).

[Drosophila]

"Bernie Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time." - Howard Dean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#cite_note-18)

Sanders has endorsed every Democratic nominee for president of the United States since 1992.

A great hero of the working class!

>implying that Congress is less important than the President

[NGNM85]

Mealy-mouthed leftist reformism, especially on a forum like this, makes me want to vomit.


Translation; 'I don't actually want to change anything. I'm more concerned with maintaining my street cred than the plight of the working class.'

[Aspiring Humanist]

Who else read that as "Bourgeois Sanders Rocks!"

[Drosophila]

Who else read that as "Bourgeois Sanders Rocks!"

TEEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE

No

[RGacky3]

Who else read that as "Bourgeois Sanders Rocks!"


What means of production does he control?

[Lucretia]

If everything but total absolute revolution is a waste of time, and its actually not a revolution unless its global (Many Leninist believe this), then whats the point.

We should be fighting to make things better and better and also toward revolution.

This is an idiotic misrepresentation of the position you're arguing against. What people are criticizing you and other "reformists" here for is not support for reforms, but support for bourgeois politicians.

[Lucretia]

Translation; 'I don't actually want to change anything. I'm more concerned with maintaining my street cred than the plight of the working class.'

Your reputation on this forum is the equivalent of the CPUSA's reputation among revolutionary leftists in the USA: you're the Democrat booster who confuses your support for bourgeois politicians with the idea of pragmatically "getting things done."

Too bad you don't realize the only thing you're "getting done" by supposedly supporting "reforms" (shilling for democrat politicians who you wrongly think are responsible for reforms) is to set back the class struggle.

Why aren't you restricted already? Oh wait. You are. :lol:

[RGacky3]

This is an idiotic misrepresentation of the position you're arguing against. What people are criticizing you and other "reformists" here for is not support for reforms, but support for bourgeois politicians.

How is he a bourgeois politician? Is EVERYONE that gets into politics automatically a bourgeois politician?


Too bad you don't realize the only thing you're "getting done" by supposedly supporting "reforms" (shilling for democrat politicians who you wrongly think are responsible for reforms) is to set back the class struggle.


No one is saying democratic politicans are responsible for reforms, its almost always class movements, most of which leninist had nothing to do with.

So tell me, whats your solution?

[Lucretia]

How is he a bourgeois politician? Is EVERYONE that gets into politics automatically a bourgeois politician?

No. And it doesn't necessarily mean that you are a literally a member of bourgeoisie. How the term is often used on this forum is to refer to people whose functional role is to prop up bourgeois control over society by supporting institutions thoroughly committed to consolidating and protecting capitalism. That is effectively what Sanders does, wherever his personal sympathies supposedly lie. Although he's not officially a "democrat," he caucuses with them, supports their leaders in congress, and votes overwhelmingly with them. Whatever he wants to call himself, he's basically a lapdog for a bourgeois party. He's therefore a bourgeois politician. And if you support him because you think he's a champion of the working class, you are effectively a bourgeois voter.


No one is saying democratic politicans are responsible for reforms, its almost always class movements, most of which leninist had nothing to do with.Then you agree it's idiotic to respond to criticisms of Sanders for voting with one of the most regressive bourgeois parties in the world 98% of the time by saying, "Well, at least he's holding elective office and can get things done!"


So tell me, whats your solution?Not supporting bourgeois politicians.

[RGacky3]

Not supporting bourgeois politicians.

Thats not a solution, supporting sanders is making stuff better.


Then you agree it's idiotic to respond to criticisms of Sanders for voting with one of the most regressive bourgeois parties in the world 98% of the time by saying, "Well, at least he's holding elective office and can get things done!"


He's voting against republicans, and he is the ONLY voice in the senate for real socail progress.


No. And it doesn't necessarily mean that you are a literally a member of bourgeoisie. How the term is often used on this forum is to refer to people whose functional role is to prop up bourgeois control over society by supporting institutions thoroughly committed to consolidating and protecting capitalism. That is effectively what Sanders does, wherever his personal sympathies supposedly lie. Although he's not officially a "democrat," he caucuses with them, supports their leaders in congress, and votes overwhelmingly with them. Whatever he wants to call himself, he's basically a lapdog for a bourgeois party. He's therefore a bourgeois politician. And if you support him because you think he's a champion of the working class, you are effectively a bourgeois voter.


So ANYONE in public office is a bourgeois politician right?

Also ANYONE that makes pragmatic votes is a boureois, right?

BTW, democrats are not a single block like republicans.

[Lucretia]

Thats not a solution, supporting sanders is making stuff better.



He's voting against republicans, and he is the ONLY voice in the senate for real socail progress.

He's voting against Republicans. So do Democrats. The democrats are a bourgeois party, so I hardly see how you are successfully making the case that Sanders is not a bourgeois politician.

What matters is what Sanders functionally supports in office. It's the democratic strategy of kicking the shit out of workers while talking a slightly better game than the republicans. The "voice of progress" you claim to hear from him is about as meaningless as all the other empty slogans and marketing gimmicks Democrap politicians invent to sucker otherwise earnest people into posting the kind of drivel on display in this thread. The second any of these voices threaten to become actual policy, the second they have the possibility of achieving the force of law, notice how quickly these voices become silent.

Notice how quickly Bernie Sanders curbed his supposedly heroic filibuster and fell meekly into line to support the pro-capitalist Obamacare bill? Faster than you can say "voice of progress." But wait. I guess he was voting against the Republicans. So he should be our hero!



So ANYONE in public office is a bourgeois politician right?

Also ANYONE that makes pragmatic votes is a boureois, right?

BTW, democrats are not a single block like republicans.Do you not know how to read? I defined what I mean by bourgeois politician. Why do you keep asking what my definition is? Not EVERYBODY in elective office is by definition a bourgeois politician. Anybody in elective office who functionally consolidates and supports capitalism is a bourgeois politician. Now it might be that the US government at this point is so solidly under the control of bourgeois interests that basically every elected national official is to some degree a bourgeois lackey, but that doesn't mean "winning elective office" is part of the definition. I am sure that there are many decent non-bourgeois politicians who are functionally struggling against capitalism at more local levels.

You're just another confused liberal who can't understand why those noble democraps keep betraying their noble pro-working-class campaign promises. Might it be that they are not a pro-worker party?

[RGacky3]

The democrats are a bourgeois party, so I hardly see how you are successfully making the case that Sanders is not a bourgeois politician.


He's in congress, a party puts up a bill that would make things worse for hte working class, and your *****ing because he tries to stop it?


Notice how quickly Bernie Sanders curbed his supposedly heroic filibuster and fell meekly into line to support the pro-capitalist Obamacare bill? Faster than you can say "voice of progress." But wait. I guess he was voting against the Republicans. So he should be our hero!


He did'nt support the Obamacare bill ...


The second any of these voices threaten to become actual policy, the second they have the possibility of achieving the force of law, notice how quickly these voices become silent.


Sanders Voice stays high, thats the point.


Do you not know how to read? I defined what I mean by bourgeois politician. Why do you keep asking what my definition is? Not EVERYBODY in elective office is by definition a bourgeois politician. Anybody in elective office who functionally consolidates and supports capitalism is a bourgeois politician.

So how would you NOT do so in the US congress? How would you actively not be a bourgeoise politician in the US congress.


I am sure that there are many decent non-bourgeois politicians who are functionally struggling against capitalism at more local levels.


You probably would'nt know, becuase you obviously don't know much about the day to day struggles of the working class, and I'll tell you what, it does'nt have to do with who does or does not theoreticall oppose capitalism.


You're just another confused liberal who can't understand why those noble democraps keep betraying their noble pro-working-class campaign promises. Might it be that they are not a pro-worker party?

He does understand and he says it over and over again that most democrats are bought and paid for ... you obviously dont know much about sanders.

[Lucretia]

He's in congress, a party puts up a bill that would make things worse for hte working class, and your *****ing because he tries to stop it?

I am not *****ing about the legislation he obstructs. I am *****ing about the legislation he doesn't obstruct.


He did'nt support the Obamacare bill ...Let's see. Does that mean he opened his mouth one day and said, "I don't support Obamacare"? Or does that mean he voted against it in reconciliation? Or does that mean he withdrew his promised filibuster, despite the fact that the bill did not contain even a public option? "Support" is a very tricky word in the hands of snake-oil-selling democraps -- and their supposedly "independent" lapdogs.


So how would you NOT do so in the US congress? How would you actively not be a bourgeoise politician in the US congress.At this point it would be pretty damned difficult. But that's precisely the point. The struggle even for modest reforms doesn't take place by voting for politicians into the right national political offices in a thoroughly bourgeois political system. It consists in grassroots organizing, protest, and consciousness building. Consider this a case study.


You probably would'nt know, becuase you obviously don't know much about the day to day struggles of the working class, and I'll tell you what, it does'nt have to do with who does or does not theoreticall oppose capitalism.No, I guess it has to do with showing up at the ballot box every six years in scenic Vermont to check the box next Bernie Sanders' name. :rolleyes:

Oh, and by the way, your little comment about "leninist" being far removed from the grassroots agitation responsible for political reforms is utterly and contemptibly false. "Leninist" communists were the backbone of both the workers and civil rights movements before the McCarthy period, and played a damned significant role in both movements after that period, throughout the 1960s, and up to today.

Without those "Leninists" there would have been no concessions to workers in the New Deal and almost certainly not the same degree of transformation in national legislation regulating racial and sexual discrimination in the various states. It honestly sounds like you have as little understanding of the history of working class politics as you do the cause of its current sad state.

[RGacky3]

I am not *****ing about the legislation he obstructs. I am *****ing about the legislation he doesn't obstruct.


Such as? So your complaining he does'nt do enough?


Let's see. Doesn't that mean he opened his mouth one day and said, "I don't support Obamacare"? Or does that mean he voted against it in reconciliation? Or does that mean he withdrew his promised filibuster, despite the fact that the bill did not contain even a public option? "Support" is a very tricky word in the hands of snake-oil-selling democraps.


If he filibustered both he and everyone else knew he would be shot down. What would you have had him do?


At this point it would be pretty damned difficult. But that's precisely the point. The struggle even for modest reforms doesn't take place by voting for politicians into the right national political offices in a thoroughly bourgeois political system. It consists in grassroots organizing, protest, and consciousness building.


I agree, and so does Bernie Sanders .... He's always saying that stuff in interviews.


No, I guess it has to do with showing up at the ballot box every six years in scenic Vermont to check the box next Bernie Sanders' name. http://www.revleft.com/vb/bernie-sanders-rocks-t160316/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


No one said that. But again, tell me, what the solutoin is.


Oh, and by the way, you're little comment about "leninists" being far removed from the grassroots agitation responsible for political reforms is utterly and contemptibly false. "Leninist" communists were the backbone of both the workers and civil rights movement before the McCarthy period, and played a damned significant role in both movements throughout the 1960s and up to today.


And they, and other socialists were fighting for reforms in the short term.


Without those "Leninists" there would have been no concessions to workers in the New Deal and almost certainly not the same degree of transformation in national legislation regulating racial and sexual discrimination in the various states. It honestly sounds like you have as little understanding of the history of working class politics as you do the cause of its current sad state.

Leninists were not the big block in the American Socialist movement at that point, nor at any point really.

[Lucretia]

If he filibustered both he and everyone else knew he would be shot down. What would you have had him do?Here's where we reach the ultimate absurdity of your understanding of American politics. You swear up and down that Bernie Sanders did not support Obamacare, yet you acknowledge that Sanders voted for it, and actually seem to justify, if not explicitly laud, the fact that he didn't filibuster it.



And they, and other socialists were fighting for reforms in the short term.Yes, but not by voting for Bernie Sanders or some equivalent political figure from the 1930s.


Leninists were not the big block in the American Socialist movement at that point, nor at any point really.Yes, but the "American Socialist" movement -- I am guessing you are referring to the Socialist Party of America -- was never a staunch supporter of civil rights, and was dead by the Great Depression. Again, brush up on your history. It was Leninists who scared the Democraps into offering workers' concessions in the New Deal, and to begin the unraveling of Jim Crow in the 1940s. There's a vast historical literature dealing with this, and I cannot be held responsible for your ignorance of it. My advice would be to spend less time reading DailyKos, and more time at your local library.

[RGacky3]

Here's where we reach the ultimate absurdity of your understanding of American politics. You swear up and down that Bernie Sanders did not support Obamacare, yet you acknowledge that Sanders voted for it, and actually seem to justify, if not explicitly laud, the fact that he didn't filibuster it.


Ok, so you tell me what would have been the better option for him to do?


Yes, but not by voting for Bernie Sanders or some equivalent political figure from the 1930s.


You mean Like Eugene Debs? Or the socialist on the New York congress? Or various socialist mayors and city councilmen. Or on a national level I guess not voting would help more right?

[Lucretia]

Ok, so you tell me what would have been the better option for him to do?

How about vote no? Simple, isn't it?


You mean Like Eugene Debs? Or the socialist on the New York congress? Or various socialist mayors and city councilmen. Or on a national level I guess not voting would help more right?Are you actually comparing Bernie Sanders, somebody who votes with the Democrats virtually ALL the time, and who caucuses with the Democrats, and whose idea of socialism is the nationalization of a few large industries -- with a man who openly broke with the Democratic party, and ran against democrats, and whose presidential platform in running against those noble democrats was fundamentally Marxist in nature, calling for working-class control over the ENTIRE economy? Your comparison might be fair if Debs became president, and suddenly started proposing pro-business legislation with a few worker protections here and there (how pragmatic of him!). Do let me know where I can pick up a copy of a history book describing Debs' first term as president of the United States.

And yes, if you were a black man before the communist party crumbled in the 1950s, and you wanted to do work on civil rights activism, you would most definitely NOT call on your friends in the Socialist Party of America. They were notoriously aloof from those early, formative years that effectively set the stage for the so-called "modern" civil rights movement of the 1950s. See Mark Naison's excellent book about the communist party in Harlem in the 1930s, Robin Kelley's book Hammer and Hoe, Glenda Gilmore's Defying Dixie, and dozens of others. All of which show how ignorant your anti-Leninist remark was.

[RGacky3]

How about vote no? Simple, isn't it?

So vote with republicans ...


Are you actually comparing Bernie Sanders, somebody who votes with the Democrats virtually ALL the time, and who caucuses with the Democrats, and whose idea of socialism is the nationalization of a few large industries -- with a man who openly broke with the Democratic party, and ran against democrats, and whose presidential platform in running against those noble democrats was fundamentally Marxist in nature, calling for working-class control over the ENTIRE economy? Your comparison might be fair if Debs became president, and suddenly started proposing pro-business legislation with a few worker protections here and there (how pragmatic of him!). Do let me know where I can pick up a copy of Debs' first term as president of the United States.


Bernie sanders, when he was mayor was pushing for non profit cooperatives.

BTW, what pro-buisiness legislation ha Debs proposed? I can give you a whole bunch of pro-worker legislation.

[Lucretia]

So vote with republicans ...

Sorry, I thought you were talking about politics, not tribal warfare. I forgot, it is impossible for Republicans do the right thing, even if for entirely wrong reasons. In a truly class-political analysis, the bill needed to fail, not because it was socialist, but because it effectively locked in private, for-profit control of health insurance for at least another generation. But I guess your tribal analysis is better. The republicans hated the bill, so the only logical thing to do was to support it, regardless of its class content. Talk about confused political thinking.


BTW, what pro-buisiness legislation ha Debs proposed? I can give you a whole bunch of pro-worker legislation.It's obvious you aren't reading my posts closely enough to justify my elaborating anymore on how foolish your comparison was. BUt I will repeat it in case any lurkers reading the thread were confused: my point was that comparing a politician who consistently supports pro-business legislation while in the Senate, including Obamacare, with a politician who called for total workers' control of the economy in his run for president after breaking from the Democratic party (remember: we CANNOT judge Debs track record as an elected official AFTER breaking from liberalism because he failed to win his presidential bids), is about as intellectually shallow and dishonest as you can get.

[RGacky3]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about politics, not tribal warfare. I forgot, it is impossible for Republicans do the right thing, even if for entirely wrong reasons. In a truly class-political analysis, the bill needed to fail, not because it was socialist, but because it effectively locked in private, for-profit control of health insurance for at least another generation. But I guess your tribal analysis is better. The republicans hated the bill, so the only logical thing to do was to support it, regardless of its class content. Talk about confused political thinking.


The argument was that this foothold, put the federal government into the health insurance buisiness, and that later that bill could be added to to make it a real healthcare bill.


my point was that comparing a politician who consistently supports pro-business legislation while in the Senate, including Obamacare

Look, if you can find someone else in government that is consistantly is a pro-worker voice and a pro-worker vote let me know.

[Lucretia]

The argument was that this foothold, put the federal government into the health insurance buisiness, and that later that bill could be added to to make it a real healthcare bill.

So you agree with the Republicans that this is a government take over of private health insurance? That's ironic on multiple levels.

[Chris]

A social-democrat? Isn't a social-democrat still quite progressive, compared to the liberals and conservatives? At least he's fighting part of the good fight.

[RGacky3]

So you agree with the Republicans that this is a government take over of private health insurance? That's ironic on multiple levels.

No, I do not, nor is that what I said.

[NGNM85]

Your reputation on this forum is the equivalent of the CPUSA's reputation among revolutionary leftists in the USA:

I wasn’t aware NothingHumanIsAlien appointed you his official representative.

If nothing else; I’ve proved I don’t give three shits about being popular. This High School crap is beneath me.


you're the Democrat booster who confuses your support for bourgeois politicians with the idea of pragmatically "getting things done."
Too bad you don't realize the only thing you're "getting done" by supposedly supporting "reforms" (shilling for democrat politicians who you wrongly think are responsible for reforms) is to set back the class struggle.

You still can’t seem to get it through your thick skull that ‘lesser evil’ is not an endorsement. The state is illegitimate, but if you give a shit about anybody besides yourself, sometimes, tactically, it makes sense to support it, or, rather, parts of it. For example; the minimal welfare state in this country is under attack. If you care about working class people you try to defend that, which doesn’t require losing sight of the fact that the state is, ultimately, an illegitimate institution.

What you’re saying sounds a lot like Chernyshevsky’s; ‘the worse, the better.’ That’s not based on concern for the working class, the attitude that displays towards the working class is between contempt and indifference. However, I expect all of this is far too nuanced for you.


Why aren't you restricted already? Oh wait. You are.

You can get restricted for anything around here. Leave it to the radical Leftists to create the most authoritarian and restrictive forum on the net. It's sad, but it's not surprising. However; my restriction had absolutely nothing to do with any of this. That was the price for having the temerity to buck the party line on an entirely unrelated issue.