Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders

[primetime]

What are your opinions on the self-proclaimed socialist candidate?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yet another wannabe social-democrat whose actual politics are to the right of the old Democrat Party. People seem to have an inordinate love of him, but then a lot of American socialists would apparently speak favourably of anyone making vague leftish noises.

[Tim Redd]

Yet another wannabe social-democrat whose actual politics are to the right of the old Democrat Party. People seem to have an inordinate love of him, but then a lot of American socialists would apparently speak favourably of anyone making vague leftish noises.
Sanders is no revolutionary, but how is he generally to the right of former Democrat policies, trends and programs?

[Puzzled Left]

Sanders is one of the last American liberals/social democrats of the 70s. He is as much left as the establishment can tolerate. He is, of course, not a revolutionary. Even if he does win (which is improbable), nothing fundamental can change.

[Synergy]

If by some miracle he actually won I would be pretty happy. He's not the perfect candidate but he could bring important issues to the national stage even if he isn't able to change much.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Ugh, this shit was so prevalent that r/socialism actually had to put up a PSA that Sanders WAS NOT A REAL SOCIALIST.

That being said....

Even if Sanders is really nothing more than a social democrat (which are a dime a dozen outside of the States), Sanders and his campaign will have at least one positive effect: He may be able to finally help Americans get over their loathing of the word 'socialism'. Yes, Sanders' 'socialism' is a naught but a highly diluted social democracy....but it just might help the word 'socialism' break throught the Great Red Wall of American political discourse.

And hey, once 'socialism' is no longer an automatic dirty word, that means that more people will be willing to actually research the subject.

It's a start.

Then again, maybe I'm just thinking overly positive here.

Also, I'm drunk.

[mushroompizza]

I don't know enough but he says he is a socialist not a social dem but he acts like a social dem in his acceptance of political society. I suppose I wouldn't be mad if he won but then again would he just further Capitalism through reforms (Impossiblism)?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sanders is no revolutionary, but how is he generally to the right of former Democrat policies, trends and programs?

I mean, FDR tried to force every existing business into a cartel. Sure, he did it to save capitalism from the stupidity of the capitalists. But it stands in stark contrast to Sander's mealy-mouthed "won't someone think of the middle class" pro-small shopkeeper nonsense.

[Cliff Paul]

A small part of me actually thought "hey after that whole Obama thing maybe the left would come to realize that 'progressive' candidates are a sham" but I guess not.

[Troika]

He's a social democrat, favors capitalism, and supports the continuation of apartheid in Israel. I would never vote for him. Ever. If you want an actual socialist candidate, vote for Jill Stein, for whatever little that vote is worth.

[SocialistPunkRocker]

He's by far the best presidential candidate out there who actually has a chance of winning. To throw away your vote by voting for someone farther left because you think he's a fake socialist or for reasons such as his support of Israel is a complete waste since Sanders is the closest we'll get to an actual socialist in office here in America. You're doing absolutely no good to your cause by voting for someone other than him or convincing others to not vote for him. Even though you may not agree with all of his policies/stances and he might not be the perfect candidate every leftist should know that a vote Bernie Sanders is a vote dedicated to moving America the way it should be moving.

Bernie 2016

[#FF0000]

He's by far the best presidential candidate out there who actually has a chance of winning. To throw away your vote by voting for someone farther left because you think he's a fake socialist or for reasons such as his support of Israel is a complete waste since Sanders is the closest we'll get to an actual socialist in office here in America. You're doing absolutely no good to your cause by voting for someone other than him or convincing others to not vote for him. Even though you may not agree with all of his policies/stances and he might not be the perfect candidate every leftist should know that a vote Bernie Sanders is a vote dedicated to moving America the way it should be moving.

Bernie 2016

I think the main mistake you make in your post here, is that you think Bernie Sanders and I share a common cause.

Also, what do you expect Bernie Sanders to actually accomplish, if by some miracle he is actually elected? You realize that Obama, an absolute centrist, couldn't get support from half his party when the Democrats had a supermajority. What do you expect Sanders to do when he's center-left in a moderate right-wing party, with no allies whatsoever in the legislative branch, let alone with no actual working class movement in the United States at all?

[SocialistPunkRocker]

I think the main mistake you make in your post here, is that you think Bernie Sanders and I share a common cause.

Also, what do you expect Bernie Sanders to actually accomplish, if by some miracle he is actually elected? You realize that Obama, an absolute centrist, couldn't get support from half his party when the Democrats had a supermajority. What do you expect Sanders to do when he's center-left in a moderate right-wing party, with no allies whatsoever in the legislative branch, let alone with no actual working class movement in the United States at all.
If you don't share a common cause with Bernie Sanders then you are certainly a minority leftist here in America.
"no actual working class movement" contributing to a working class movement in America is in my opinion one of the major things that a Sanders presidency (not to mention a campaign) would do for the leftist movement in America. In my opinion, if Bernie Sanders gets elected people will become less afraid of the words "socialism" and "communism" (Yes, I know he's not a communist but people here in America are dumb) which is one of the biggest problems for leftists here in America.

[Sewer Socialist]

You are correct to notice that a socialist candidate will not be elected in the circumstances we find ourselves in. But if these circumstances are an impediment to socialism, our best course of action is to destroy those circumstances; destroy that which stands in the way.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

i always figure i'm going to be overwhelmed by a deep and pervasive feeling of disappointment and failure in general so yeah, i have no problem with voting. It doesn't really matter what country or candidate we're talking about, i can't imagine Bernie Sanders has any more chance of being a viable candidate than the Greens in the UK having more than 1 or 2 mps nor can I imagine the outcome being any different than it has been any other time a supposed 'radical' social democrat has got in to power at any point over the last, oh, hundred and twenty years or so. It's all so utterly, suffocatingly tiring to see whatever 'new hope' is floating around. It's real life, not fucking star wars. There aren't any ewoks coming to trip up giant republican walking tanks so bernie sanders can go to an artificial moon and fight his dad.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think the main mistake you make in your post here, is that you think Bernie Sanders and I share a common cause.

This can't be emphasised enough. The best that Sanders offers is still capitalism, which means we still get screwed over, no matter how nice a face Bernie puts on the system that screws us over.

And since I'm in a bad mood today, perhaps SPR could explain to us just what is it that Sanders asks for that wouldn't have met with the approval of, say, an anti-communist butcher like Chiang Kaishek. In fact the old devil would have presumably found Sanders to be far too stuck up the arse of the "middle class", rhetorically.

[mushroompizza]

The Democratic Socialist party endorsed him and they are real socialists. What do we make of this?

[G4b3n]

A small part of me actually thought "hey after that whole Obama thing maybe the left would come to realize that 'progressive' candidates are a sham" but I guess not.

The New Left has had that mentality since LBJ. We need to realize that when individual liberals prove their hypocrisy it does not equal mass disillusionment.

[#FF0000]

The Democratic Socialist party endorsed him and they are real socialists. What do we make of this?

You mean the Democratic Socialists of America? They're social-democrats, not revolutionary socialists.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If you don't share a common cause with Bernie Sanders then you are certainly a minority leftist here in America.


I dare say that was likely quite the point. Most "leftists" are in fact not revolutionary communists, who'd have thought?

[#FF0000]

If you don't share a common cause with Bernie Sanders then you are certainly a minority leftist here in America.

That might be true, but in my experience most leftists I've met and spoken to have been revolutionary socialists who are skeptical, to say the least, of the prospects of electoral politics alone leading anywhere useful.

Then again I wouldn't be too surprised if it turned out most "leftists" in the US were social-democrats. But even then, so what?


"no actual working class movement" contributing to a working class movement in America is in my opinion one of the major things that a Sanders presidency (not to mention a campaign) would do for the leftist movement in America. In my opinion, if Bernie Sanders gets elected people will become less afraid of the words "socialism" and "communism" (Yes, I know he's not a communist but people here in America are dumb) which is one of the biggest problems for leftists here in America.

How would Sanders' campaign contribute to a working class movement? The majority of Americans already feel positively about "socialism" in the abstract. Concretely, what do you expect from Sanders' campaign?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If you don't share a common cause with Bernie Sanders then you are certainly a minority leftist here in America.
"no actual working class movement" contributing to a working class movement in America is in my opinion one of the major things that a Sanders presidency (not to mention a campaign) would do for the leftist movement in America. In my opinion, if Bernie Sanders gets elected people will become less afraid of the words "socialism" and "communism" (Yes, I know he's not a communist but people here in America are dumb) which is one of the biggest problems for leftists here in America.

Strange, I would have thought the greatest problem was the world-historic defeat of the October Revolution and such things, not that people are "afraid" of words (American workers aren't mewling idiots). I mean, how is this even supposed to go? "Oh ey lads want to go protest?" "No I'm afraid of those them darn commyunists being there." "Well alright. By the way, did you hear Sanders won the electoral college?" "KILL THE BOURGEOISIE." It doesn't work like that.

And yes, if by "leftists" you mean "revolutionary socialists" and not "Democrat voters", we don't have the same goals as Sanders. Our goals are an overthrow of the bourgeois state and an end to private property. Sanders's aren't.

[#FF0000]

fwiw I don't mind the idea of people voting for Sanders just because the like the idea of something a little different from usual. Not my business what ppl do behind closed curtains. But 1) thinking anything is gonna come of it is kind of silly and 2) encouraging people to actively work for and organize around his campaign is a tremendous waste of time, energy, and effort.

[John Nada]

If by some miracle he actually won I would be pretty happy. He's not the perfect candidate but he could bring important issues to the national stage even if he isn't able to change much.Even if deep down inside Sanders was to the left of Lenin, he's just one person. When you vote, you're actually voting for cliques, factions and the Parties behind the candidates too. And all of them are part of a big bureaucracy and political machines that are designed for and by the capitalist class.
Though Sanders was officially an independent, he's the only member of the Progressive Caucus in the Senate. Now he may be their only presence in the Senate, but the Progressive Caucus actually has more members(many with seniority) in the House of Representatives than the Tea Party/Liberty Caucus representing the right-wing of the Republicans.

It's the Democrats largest Caucus. Yet almost no media attention is paid to the Progressive Caucus. During the healthcare debate early in Obama's first term, you'd swear it was a choice between expanding mandatory auto insurance to health insurance, or abolishing Medicare and Medicaid. Nothing about the "Medicare for All" bill from the Progressive Caucus. Nor did anyone give a fuck about the "Employee Free Choice Act" that would've made it easier to unionize.

This is from the left-wing of the Democrats. None call themselves socialist, yet many are to the left of Sanders, based on votes and positions.
I don't know enough but he says he is a socialist not a social dem but he acts like a social dem in his acceptance of political society. I suppose I wouldn't be mad if he won but then again would he just further Capitalism through reforms (Impossiblism)?Progressive reforms in the here and now should be supported. Masochism doesn't bring us closer to socialism. But reforms will only go so far, and history has shown time and time again it'll get reversed. And with the Democrats you can't even say they betrayed the workers like the German Social Democrats, British Labour or the Kuomintang did; they never were a worker's party.

He's a social democrat. A socialist of the Bernsteinite type. Gradual reforms to make capitalism nice enough that the capitalist will give up and create socialism for some bizarre reason. But only in the US, Palestinians don't matter:rolleyes:. "Socialist in words, imperialist in deeds".
He's by far the best presidential candidate out there who actually has a chance of winning. To throw away your vote by voting for someone farther left because you think he's a fake socialist or for reasons such as his support of Israel is a complete waste since Sanders is the closest we'll get to an actual socialist in office here in America. You're doing absolutely no good to your cause by voting for someone other than him or convincing others to not vote for him. Even though you may not agree with all of his policies/stances and he might not be the perfect candidate every leftist should know that a vote Bernie Sanders is a vote dedicated to moving America the way it should be moving.In many states one has to register as a Democrat to vote in the primaries. In some states the candidate is decided by a caucus of Party delegates. These states happen to be sparsely populated and whiter than the rest of the country. In the Democratic National Convention there's "super-delegates" of Party bosses that can override the majority. In many states one party's going to win no matter what.

You can choose to vote(or not vote) for whoever the fuck you want(unless you're a felon, under 18, undocumented, non-citizen, imprisoned, ect.). You can "join"(by checking a box) whichever of the two parties you wish(the Democrats and Republicans are more patronage machines than mass parties). In turn, anyone else can do whatever the fuck they want, so long as a member of the Democrat-Republican Party wins. For many, the states are so dominated by one party that it doesn't matter what you do.
If you don't share a common cause with Bernie Sanders then you are certainly a minority leftist here in America. "no actual working class movement" contributing to a working class movement in America is in my opinion one of the major things that a Sanders presidency (not to mention a campaign) would do for the leftist movement in America. In my opinion, if Bernie Sanders gets elected people will become less afraid of the words "socialism" and "communism" (Yes, I know he's not a communist but people here in America are dumb) which is one of the biggest problems for leftists here in America.I don't think the American proletariat is dumb. The fact is that usually half of registered voters spontaneously boycott the elections, and this half disproportionately comes from the workers, the poor and oppressed peoples, shows they know capitalist "democracy" is only for the rich and a sham for everyone else. That barely below, and often above, half don't support anyone shows that the Democrats and Republicans are in the minority of the country(ie 80% turnout with one party getting 60% of the vote is still only 48%).

I don't think the Red Scare/Cold War hangover is what's holding the back from supporting communism. If you think pre-revolution Russia or China was some bastion of progress compared to modern USA you'd be sorely mistaken. "White Terror", proto-fascists and actual fascists were going on a killing spree. That didn't stop communism from winning over the masses.

IIRC, the number of Americans who think socialism is a good and capitalism is bad, is growing. It's higher than average for the young, the poor, workers and oppressed minorities.

The logic of third-parties and outsider candidates is that it'll pressure the mainstream winning candidate to move closer to the left of the political spectrum. What would just be a hardcore neoliberal would have to at least put up a fight and throw a few crumbs. Problem is that the Democrats are just as, if not more, likely to move to the right to get the rightists votes and money.

If Sanders was running under a third-party and had a real shot at meeting Debs's record of about 5%, that would qualify that (hopefully)socialist party for public financing of electoral campaigns. This would be much more resources for a platform to educate the people.

Unfortunately, Sanders is running as a Democrat. This is part of the Democrats "big tent" strategy. The Democrats depend on the proletariat(workers) and oppressed minorities for votes. The Democrats haven't delivered much to the workers or minorities. There's a crises of leadership within their ranks. Clinton is the closest thing to someone marketable, and like Obama, has a neoliberal ideology that offers their targeted demographics nothing.

What they'll do is stage some debates. Sanders will be something like a cross between Dennis Kucinich and Eugene McCarthy(AFAIK no relation to the semi-fascist Joe McCarthy). The voice of reason in the debates, but someone people will say,"Yeah, he's right, but too idealistic and not charismatic enough to be President"(Ron Paul seems to have been the Republican equivalent). Anything radical he might say will be recuperated(if not plagiarized) as empty slogans.

However, there is something very important he can give them. If young voters register as Democrats, this can alter the redistricting after the next Presidential Election. The last census was in 2010, a non-presidential election year. Republicans won many seats throughout the government that year, due to disappointment over the Democrats being Democrats, so their voters didn't turn out. Low turnout favors the Republicans, who don't even pretend to side with the workers but kiss bourgeois ass. They were then able to gerrymander the electoral districts to favor the Republicans. More people voted Democrat, but Republicans dominate the government now. If the Democrats can gain control up to the census(during a Presidential election year, with high turnout), they can redraw the districts to their advantage. Even if they lose in 2020, in 2022 they can take a big shit on the Republican., President
The Democratic Socialist party endorsed him and they are real socialists. What do we make of this?Do you mean the Democratic Socialists of America(DSA)? They're revisionist social democrats, though I think there are some Marxists in that org. Even so, some members want to break off from the Democrats.

IIRC some members of DSA write for Jacobin. It's not the official magazine of that org and they have many contrubuters from different groups withopposing point of views. Here's some articles for (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-president-vermont-socialist/) and against (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-socialist-president-clinton/).

[Puzzled Left]

He's a social democrat, favors capitalism, and supports the continuation of apartheid in Israel. I would never vote for him. Ever. If you want an actual socialist candidate, vote for Jill Stein, for whatever little that vote is worth.
As far as I know, there is no fundamental difference between the views of Sanders and Stein. The Green Party has always been a social democratic party, so how is Stein, other than being outside of the two party establishment, a more worthy candidate?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Sanders is a militarist scum-fuck

[Cliff Paul]

Sanders is a militarist scum-fuck

This is true. A lot of 'progressives' I know railed against Clinton's support for Israel but are now strangely silent on Bernie Sanders' positions (which are pretty much identical to Hillary's).

[Comrade Jacob]

Don't know much about him but he seems progressive

[consuming negativity]

how do any of you know bernie sanders isn't a "revolutionary communist"? or do you actually think that's something he could be honest about?

i'm not saying it's likely or that it's a good idea to base your actions on "what if?"s like that, but someone needed to break up the echo chamber a little bit. the introduction of someone like bernie sanders to mainstream political discourse will be, at the very least, interesting, if you ask me.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

how do any of you know bernie sanders isn't a "revolutionary communist"? or do you actually think that's something he could be honest about?

i'm not saying it's likely or that it's a good idea to base your actions on "what if?"s like that, but someone needed to break up the echo chamber a little bit. the introduction of someone like bernie sanders to mainstream political discourse will be, at the very least, interesting, if you ask me.

This is silly to, well, to put it mildly.

How do you know Scheidemann wasn't a "revolutionary communist"? Mussolini? Wang Jingwei? Yeltsin? Geoff from down the street who voted Republican all his life?

None of these gentlemen claim to be revolutionary communists, and they certainly don't act like revolutionary communists.

Also the entire "it will make political discourse better/interesting/whatever" canard is a bit of a laugh as various "socialists" like Norman Thomas and Vito Marcantonio have already participated in American politics.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't see what point a communist would have running for office in a bourgeois state if they aren't open about advocating communism. That is, unless they think that they can somehow advance communism behind the backs of the workers while being the executive head of a bourgeois state... in which case they are no revolutionary communist. Communists, when they participate in parliaments, for example, openly support communism and use parliament as a platform for revolutionary ideas.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Also the entire "it will make political discourse better/interesting/whatever" canard is a bit of a laugh as various "socialists" like Norman Thomas and Vito Marcantonio have already participated in American politics.

They participated in an entirely different American political context, I would think these examples actually somewhat substantiate his point. I mean maybe if you found another politican in recent times who claimed to support "socialism" your point would stand but really this guy seems to be the only noticeable one, so his popularity is interesting, even if irrelevant to workers struggles

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

They participated in an entirely different American political context, I would think these examples actually somewhat substantiate his point. I mean maybe if you found another politican in recent times who claimed to support "socialism" your point would stand but really this guy seems to be the only noticeable one, so his popularity is interesting, even if irrelevant to workers struggles

Then we can look no further than the CWI's own Kshama Sawant. Or Angela Davis. Or the late Pen Kemble.

I also don't understand how Sanders's popularity being "interesting" is relevant. A lot of things are interesting. The question is whether they merit political support. I think the way in which political party labels operate in France is interesting (to use an example from another thread). That doesn't mean I support the MoDem.

[consuming negativity]

This is silly to, well, to put it mildly.

How do you know Scheidemann wasn't a "revolutionary communist"? Mussolini? Wang Jingwei? Yeltsin? Geoff from down the street who voted Republican all his life?

None of these gentlemen claim to be revolutionary communists, and they certainly don't act like revolutionary communists.

Also the entire "it will make political discourse better/interesting/whatever" canard is a bit of a laugh as various "socialists" like Norman Thomas and Vito Marcantonio have already participated in American politics.


I don't see what point a communist would have running for office in a bourgeois state if they aren't open about advocating communism. That is, unless they think that they can somehow advance communism behind the backs of the workers while being the executive head of a bourgeois state... in which case they are no revolutionary communist. Communists, when they participate in parliaments, for example, openly support communism and use parliament as a platform for revolutionary ideas.

I don't claim to know what people believe because I'm not them and so I can't know. Unlike Trotskyists, I don't think I have all of the answers to the world's problems, I don't think I know everything, and I don't think everyone else is silly (see: stupid) for questioning my line of argument.

As for the whole "why on earth would he be a communist pretending to be a democratic socialist" bit, there are plenty of reasons. Maybe he wants to win, or maybe he thinks that by sanitizing the term "socialism" he can make inroads in the fight against reaction in America. I don't claim to know, but you can be a communist while supporting policies and even enacting policies that are against your own personal views. In fact, basically every self-proclaimed "communist" leader in history did that. Including Leon Trotsky.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't claim to know what people believe because I'm not them and so I can't know. Unlike Trotskyists, I don't think I have all of the answers to the world's problems, I don't think I know everything, and I don't think everyone else is silly (see: stupid) for questioning my line of argument.

I don't think everyone else is silly for "questioning my line of argument". I think the "how do you guys know he's not a secret communist" argument is silly, and it's easy to see why. And I note you haven't answered the question: how do you know Wang Jingwei was not a communist? Sure, he led the "left-wing" of the GMD and later the collaborationist RGRC, but maybe he was secretly trying to accomplish something or other. I don't know. I never had it in me to be a conspiracy theorist.


As for the whole "why on earth would he be a communist pretending to be a democratic socialist" bit, there are plenty of reasons. Maybe he wants to win, or maybe he thinks that by sanitizing the term "socialism" he can make inroads in the fight against reaction in America.

If he "wants to win" and manage the bourgeois state in America for four years, he is, you guessed it, not a revolutionary socialist. If he thinks that "sanitizing the term 'socialism'" can lead to "inroads in the fight against reaction", he doesn't live on the same planet as the rest of us, since (1) there are already "socialist" politicians in America, and (2) reaction can't be fought by "sanitising" words. Good grief, it really does seem at times as if more people on this site base their analysis of society on Hermes Trismegistus than on Marx.


I don't claim to know, but you can be a communist while supporting policies and even enacting policies that are against your own personal views. In fact, basically every self-proclaimed "communist" leader in history did that. Including Leon Trotsky.

Implying that we support everything Trotsky did. Which we don't. Even in his late period, the Proletarian Military Policy was liberal guff and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't claim to know what people believe because I'm not them and so I can't know. Unlike Trotskyists, I don't think I have all of the answers to the world's problems, I don't think I know everything, and I don't think everyone else is silly (see: stupid) for questioning my line of argument.

It's fascinating how disagreement with an argument means that we, especially since we are Trotskyists, think we know every answer to every problem. Do you really think the reason behind our opposition to your argument is that it conflicts with our Trotskyism? I'm sure many people would disagree with your argument, including anarchists, left communists, Stalinists, liberals, fascists, etc. Why do you even bring any sort of tendency talk into this? The attempt to bash Trotskyists is completely unnecessary.


As for the whole "why on earth would he be a communist pretending to be a democratic socialist" bit, there are plenty of reasons. Maybe he wants to win, or maybe he thinks that by sanitizing the term "socialism" he can make inroads in the fight against reaction in America. I don't claim to know, but you can be a communist while supporting policies and even enacting policies that are against your own personal views. In fact, basically every self-proclaimed "communist" leader in history did that. Including Leon Trotsky.

Non-communist workers will start to accept communism when they see communists supporting them in their struggles and pointing towards a real solution to their problems -- the capturing of political power by the working class to work towards building communism. Maybe more non-communist people will become more and more okay with the term "socialism" if they see that the head of the world's largest imperialist power is using it as synonymous with support of the liberal politics they already support (this is true in countries where "socialist" parties are in power, but it is already the case in the United States -- "socialism" is very often already used to describe liberal and social democratic politics), but the victims of imperialism, the working class, and oppressed groups will not become more friendly to the term "socialism" when it is used to label policies designed to crush them. Communists cannot trick people into supporting actual socialist politics. We don't care to try to make us appear "friendlier" to the most reactionary parts of society. We care about what the workers and other oppressed people think socialism is.

[Ele'ill]

People feel obligated to engage in spectacle politics probably in the same way they participate in fantasy sports leagues and reality TV, it makes about as much of a difference and maybe subconsciously they are aware of this and its exactly why they do it, no sudden changes, no painful individual rupture into the alien land of reality, hopelessness, the void. All things understood are a flavor of mass opinion eagerly explained at everyone almost like a general warning perpetually being announced into the metropolis. Adventure is dead, nothing is ever explored, nothing is ever actually discovered.

[consuming negativity]

I don't think everyone else is silly for "questioning my line of argument". I think the "how do you guys know he's not a secret communist" argument is silly, and it's easy to see why. And I note you haven't answered the question: how do you know Wang Jingwei was not a communist? Sure, he led the "left-wing" of the GMD and later the collaborationist RGRC, but maybe he was secretly trying to accomplish something or other. I don't know. I never had it in me to be a conspiracy theorist.



If he "wants to win" and manage the bourgeois state in America for four years, he is, you guessed it, not a revolutionary socialist. If he thinks that "sanitizing the term 'socialism'" can lead to "inroads in the fight against reaction", he doesn't live on the same planet as the rest of us, since (1) there are already "socialist" politicians in America, and (2) reaction can't be fought by "sanitising" words. Good grief, it really does seem at times as if more people on this site base their analysis of society on Hermes Trismegistus than on Marx.



Implying that we support everything Trotsky did. Which we don't. Even in his late period, the Proletarian Military Policy was liberal guff and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise.

>communists do not manage bourgeois states (inb4 "deformed workers rationalization")
>the word "socialism" having been completely co-opted by reaction is not detrimental to the workers' movement
>there are plenty of other socialist politicians in the united states and any who are anywhere near as influential as bernie sanders who is a congressman

there is no point in arguing with a person who is so blind that they actually believe these things. let me guess, next you're going to tell me that being an influential politician doesn't matter even though we know of bernie sanders, vladimir lenin, and george w. bush but have no idea who you are.

[consuming negativity]

It's fascinating how disagreement with an argument means that we, especially since we are Trotskyists, think we know every answer to every problem. Do you really think the reason behind our opposition to your argument is that it conflicts with our Trotskyism? I'm sure many people would disagree with your argument, including anarchists, left communists, Stalinists, liberals, fascists, etc. Why do you even bring any sort of tendency talk into this? The attempt to bash Trotskyists is completely unnecessary.

Non-communist workers will start to accept communism when they see communists supporting them in their struggles and pointing towards a real solution to their problems -- the capturing of political power by the working class to work towards building communism. Maybe more non-communist people will become more and more okay with the term "socialism" if they see that the head of the world's largest imperialist power is using it as synonymous with support of the liberal politics they already support (this is true in countries where "socialist" parties are in power, but it is already the case in the United States -- "socialism" is very often already used to describe liberal and social democratic politics), but the victims of imperialism, the working class, and oppressed groups will not become more friendly to the term "socialism" when it is used to label policies designed to crush them. Communists cannot trick people into supporting actual socialist politics. We don't care to try to make us appear "friendlier" to the most reactionary parts of society. We care about what the workers and other oppressed people think socialism is.

No, bringing Trotskyism into it was me trying to point out that Leon Trotsky himself was a fucking bourgeois politician who called himself a communist who you all recognize as communists. It's a direct attack on the ridiculous internally-incongruent position that you hold.

You're right that communists can't trick people into supporting socialism. Which is exactly why I think we ought to show them that we're right rather than asking them to trust us based on some shit we read written by some rich fuck who lived 150 years ago. I'm not saying we win, I'm saying it doesn't matter what happens. If we don't win, we don't really have popular support for a revolution anyway. If we do win, one of two things happens. Either they let us dismantle the state from within or they destroy the democratic system that gives them their legitimacy. It's an invaluable tool - maybe the only way we can actually prove ourselves right through experimentation - and we've completely foregone it because a bunch of hipsters and wanna-be revolutionaries would rather get pepper sprayed by cops while trying to convince people of what sounds more like religious dogma than any sort of scientific truth about the world. The proletariat will unite and bring us all to salvation! What is the proletariat except another fucking idea in our head anyway? Fuck the amorphous, faceless "working class". The point isn't that we need to abolish all this garbage, the point is that the power they have over us is completely in our fucking heads. WE CONTROL EVERYTHING. WE RUN EVERYTHING. IT'S ALL ALREADY OURS - WE OPERATE IT BUT RECOGNIZE OTHER PEOPLE'S "PROPERTY RIGHTS" OVER IT BECAUSE WE ARE FUCKING STUPID MONKEYS WHO WORSHIP GREEN PAPER. CLASS AND RACE AND GENDER AND SEX AND THE REST DON'T EXIST ANYWHERE ELSE EXCEPT AS TERMS IN OUR HEADS TO DESCRIBE SHIT.

[John Nada]

You're right that communists can't trick people into supporting socialism. Which is exactly why I think we ought to show them that we're right rather than asking them to trust us based on some shit we read written by some rich fuck who lived 150 years ago.Bourgeois American politicians, such as the Democrats, have no problem tricking the proletariat into support shit written by rich fucks 300 years ago. Hence gaining support from below, rather than tailing neoliberals and social imperialists.[/quote] I'm not saying we win, I'm saying it doesn't matter what happens. If we don't win, we don't really have popular support for a revolution anyway. If we do win, one of two things happens. Either they let us dismantle the state from within or they destroy the democratic system that gives them their legitimacy. It's an invaluable tool - maybe the only way we can actually prove ourselves right through experimentation - and we've completely foregone it because a bunch of hipsters and wanna-be revolutionaries would rather get pepper sprayed by cops while trying to convince people of what sounds more like religious dogma than any sort of scientific truth about the world.[/quote]Would-be revolutionaries should be down with possibly getting shot by cops while trying to educate the people on the truth of scientific socialism. None of the past revolutionaries were certain they wouldn't end up like the Paris Communards, Spartacists, or Shanghai Communards.

In "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Lenin argues that Communist should work with reformist unions and fight in parliaments. Not his best work IMO. It has become the go-to justification for opportunist. However there's a couple sentences they like to ignore that put the whole thing into perspective.
Today, when we look back at this fully completed historical period, whose connection with subsequent periods has now become quite clear, it becomes most obvious that in 1908–14 the Bolsheviks could not have preserved (let alone strengthened and developed) the core of the revolutionary party of the proletariat, had they not upheld, in a most strenuous struggle, the viewpoint that it was obligatory to combine legal and illegal forms of struggle, and that it was obligatory to participate even in a most reactionary parliament and in a number of other institutions hemmed in by reactionary laws (sick benefit societies, etc.). https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch04.htm
In many countries, including the most advanced, the bourgeoisie are undoubtedly sending agents provocateurs into the Communist parties and will continue to do so. A skilful combining of illegal and legal work is one of the ways to combat this danger.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch05.htm Elections are just one tool to use as a platform for a revolution, in combination with a variety of other tactics. Not a strategy. TBH in the case of the US, it doesn't matter who you vote for. It's essentially a one-party system, just with two main factions that don't like each other.
The proletariat will unite and bring us all to salvation! What is the proletariat except another fucking idea in our head anyway? Fuck the amorphous, faceless "working class". The point isn't that we need to abolish all this garbage, the point is that the power they have over us is completely in our fucking heads. WE CONTROL EVERYTHING. WE RUN EVERYTHING. IT'S ALL ALREADY OURS - WE OPERATE IT BUT RECOGNIZE OTHER PEOPLE'S "PROPERTY RIGHTS" OVER IT BECAUSE WE ARE FUCKING STUPID MONKEYS WHO WORSHIP GREEN PAPER. CLASS AND RACE AND GENDER AND SEX AND THE REST DON'T EXIST ANYWHERE ELSE EXCEPT AS TERMS IN OUR HEADS TO DESCRIBE SHIT.I'm reminded of a scene in the movie Blow. Johnny Depp's character gets busted for smuggling weed from Mexico. His defense was he just crossed an imaginary line with some plants. The Judge tells him that unfortunately, that imaginary line is real and the plants are illegal.:(

The fact that race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, property, classes and capitalism itself are social constructs made by primates does not negate it's real life material effects. In fact this site is a social construct, yet it's very much real. It that such social constructs are not timeless, but are made and charge over different phases. Under socialism things will change too.

The proletariat's revolutionary potenticial is because of there's position in capitalism. A massive class that does the work. The bourgeoisie were obsolete like 100 years ago IMO. However, they have allies among other classes(including class traitors from the proletariat) and control the state. Through hook, crook and sheer force capitalism has managed to hold on for now. Capitalism's illusion of importance won't destroy itself automatically.

[#FF0000]

As for the whole "why on earth would he be a communist pretending to be a democratic socialist" bit, there are plenty of reasons.

I mean, you aren't technically wrong, but by the same token Bernie Sanders could be a dyed-in-the-wool Fascist pretending to be a democratic socialist too!!!!!! Did you ever think of that!?

[John Nada]

An article that describes how Sanders is taking part in the traditional position of the "left" Primary candidate, called the "sheepdog", to direct activist into supporting the Democrat's election campaign, and away from other struggles:
The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for re-election.”

Spoiler alert: we have seen the Bernie Sanders show before, and we know exactly how it ends. Bernie has zero likelihood of winning the Democratic nomination for president over Hillary Clinton. Bernie will lose, Hillary will win. When Bernie folds his tent in the summer of 2016, the money, the hopes and prayers, the year of activist zeal that folks put behind Bernie Sanders' either vanishes into thin air, or directly benefits the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Don't believe us? Then believe Bernie himself interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC News “This Week” May 3.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you lose in this nomination fight, will you support the Democratic nominee?

SANDERS: Yes. I have in the past.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Not going to run as an independent?

SANDERS: No, absolutely not. I've been very clear about that.

Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.

1984 and 88 the sheepdog candidate was Jesse Jackson. In 92 it was California governor Jerry Brown. In 2000 and 2004 the designated sheepdog was Al Sharpton, and in 2008 it was Dennis Kucinich. This year it's Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party, if and only if the eventual Democratic nominee can win in November.Source: http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary

It would be more beneficial to focus outside the Democrats. They're a bourgeois imperialist party through and through. Going back to a relatively progressive era(that only existed in the minds of white men) is a pipe dream. People shouldn't cede precious time and energy every eight years on the "lesser evil". Mainstream politics is only moving further to the right, the New Deal and Grand Society reforms aren't coming back.

IMO it really doesn't matter if one votes for Sanders or not. Maybe local elections(which no one seems to give a fuck about) are worthwhile. Just real change takes place in the streets, not the ballot box.

[lutraphile]

He is a social democrat. Maybe an ultra-reformist socialist if you're being kind.
Having said that, I am thrilled he is running. Those who don't live in America cannot begin to comprehend the breakthrough that a self-styled socialist getting 15% in the polls means to the political dynamics of this country. I have volunteered for his campaign, and will enthusiastically vote for him.

I recognize he is not a true socialist, but honestly this is almost unimportant. The de-stigmitization of socialism must occur in America before any true progress could be made. Sanders getting 30ish percent in the Democratic primaries would be absolutely huge.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

>communists do not manage bourgeois states (inb4 "deformed workers rationalization")

There is nothing quite like people trying to be clever by saying something that is true in a sarcastic manner. In fact, yes, communists don't manage bourgeois states. Your next line of defense is to suggest Trotsky did. You don't seem to understand it, though: if he did, that would mean Trotsky wasn't a communist, not that participating in the management of a bourgeois state is compatible with being a communist. And you seem to confuse Trotskyists with people who want to fuck Trotsky's corpse. Trotsky made a lot of mistakes. In fact he betrayed at times. We're Trotskyists because we uphold the perspective of the revolutionary 4th International, not because we think Trotsky was an incorruptible saint whose shit was composed of sparkles and rainbows.


>the word "socialism" having been completely co-opted by reaction is not detrimental to the workers' movement

What does something being "co-opted" mean? It means that it's now used for purposes other than, and possibly opposed to, the original intended use. Which in fact describes Sanders and his brand of Democratic "socialism" perfectly.

But no, again, history is driven by material causes, not by words. The October Revolution happened while the word "socialism" was being used by the German High Command to refer to their programme to effectively use capitalist enterprise to provide war materiel to the Central Powers.


>there are plenty of other socialist politicians in the united states and any who are anywhere near as influential as bernie sanders who is a congressman

The late P. Kemble was even more influential, being a senior adviser to the Clinton and Bush II presidencies (yes, the Bush administration included "socialists").


there is no point in arguing with a person who is so blind that they actually believe these things. let me guess, next you're going to tell me that being an influential politician doesn't matter even though we know of bernie sanders, vladimir lenin, and george w. bush but have no idea who you are.

I have no idea who you are either, and I have no idea why that is relevant. Not to mention the only reason anyone knows who Barnie Sanders is is that his fans keep banging on about how great he is. I remember a similar reaction to Kucinic - where is he now?

Also lay off the "wake up sheeple" rhetoric.

[MarxSchmarx]

Sanders is a reformist social democrat (in its full derogative sense) under the best of circumstances. He is only tolerable in contract to the other clowns wanting to rule America. Yeah he talks a decent game in the context of american politics but at the end of the day he is going nowhere and he has no viable ideoligy. Henceforth, any pro-sanders stuff will be relegated to chitchat. The serious left should not waste its time, energy and limited resources on this man, however meritorious his positions seem.

[BIXX]

Honestly I just don't know why we care about sanders- why not think about responses to what the state is going to do, what attacks on us it'll make, etc...

[Antiochus]

I don't support Sanders and I won't bother to vote for him anyway. But the fact that he has "support" despite calling himself a socialist (I know he isn't nevertheless, its what he calls himself) is pretty astounding.

The politics in the U.S are so far to the right at this stage that Obama has more in common with the neo-fascist Reagan than the Republicans of today. So in this hyper conservative climate, where inexplicably being "conservative" is actually a "refreshing" (LOL!) political tendency within mainstream American politics, the fact a "socialist" (openly calling himself one) is able to garner any votes, is fascinating and opens the doors for meaningful social change.

That said, I don't expect anything from him or his supporters.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

(1) Reagan wasn't a "neo-fascist". Where do people get these bizarre ideas from?

(2) Like I said, there were "socialists" in the Bush administration. A lot of leftists need to get rid of this kind of magical thinking.

[Antiochus]

Why not?

Reagan was clearly not your run in the mill conservative. His obsession with the destruction of unions, his confrontational desire to "confront Communism" (which ok, its the U.S but nevertheless, the rhetoric got ridiculous) and his unification of the reactionary elements of American society like the evangelical right to pit them against "leftists" (mainly liberals) and Communists has many of the hallmarks of fascism.

I mean, people happily call Pinochet a fascist but not Reagan? What did Pinochet do that was so different from Reagan? And off course if you want to argue Reagan was just a puppet, ok, but at least it represented a fascist current within American politics that had not really reared its head yet.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Pinochet wasn't a fascist, either. But it is certainly more plausible when some refer to him as one, as one thing that Pinochet did but Reagan didn't was lead a military putsch, leading to the murder, rape, imprisonment in concentration camps etc. of a horrifying number of socialists, political opponents of Pinochet, various social "undesirables" etc. Reagan was as bad as every other US president, including those that "the left" drools over, but let's not blow things out of proportion. In fact Reagan stopped a very effective program of persecution of homosexuals because he was too stingy to pay for "mental health".

[Bala Perdida]

Pinochet wasn't a fascist, either. But it is certainly more plausible when some refer to him as one, as one thing that Pinochet did but Reagan didn't was lead a military putsch, leading to the murder, rape, imprisonment in concentration camps etc. of a horrifying number of socialists, political opponents of Pinochet, various social "undesirables" etc. Reagan was as bad as every other US president, including those that "the left" drools over, but let's not blow things out of proportion. In fact Reagan stopped a very effective program of persecution of homosexuals because he was too stingy to pay for "mental health".
Reagan's 'war on drugs' crack down was among the most damaging in recent history. A lot of it did assist in his administrations persecution of political rivals, not just opposition but also 'undesirables' of the state. I wouldn't call him a fascist being that he didn't use fascist rhetoric or symbolism, he's bad enough being what he is. This obsession with fascist labeling confuses me.

As for the Sanders guy, I don't vote so I couldn't care less. Voting isn't gonna stop systematic genocide, so I really don't see any point to advocate it when there are always more urgent actions to attend to.

[RedWorker]

Henceforth, any pro-sanders stuff will be relegated to chitchat.

Why is that? It obviously belongs in "Politics". Talk about "democratic socialism", Cuba market economy worship and all other kinds of social democracy is also here - why should Sanders stuff be in chit chat?


The serious left should not waste its time, energy and limited resources on this man, however meritorious his positions seem.

If this is an opinion, it's just fine. But if it's a justification as a moderator for moving stuff from one section to the other: A lot of the 'serious left' (or at least what would be labeled as so here - includes Marxists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, anarchists and other groups) advocates voting for social democratic or reformist candidates and this is obvious. So if this forum is going to be moderated by the standards of the 'serious left' then social democratic and reformism talk should be allowed in Politics.

[MarxSchmarx]

Why is that? It obviously belongs in "Politics". Talk about "democratic socialism", Cuba market economy worship and all other kinds of social democracy is also here - why should Sanders stuff be in chit chat?



If this is an opinion, it's just fine. But if it's a justification as a moderator for moving stuff from one section to the other: A lot of the 'serious left' (or at least what would be labeled as so here - includes Marxists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, anarchists and other groups) advocates voting for social democratic or reformist candidates and this is obvious. So if this forum is going to be moderated by the standards of the 'serious left' then social democratic and reformism talk should be allowed in Politics.

Well I agree we need to be more consistent about it, and actually oi would make more sense than chitchat. Talking about sanders or reformism is fine, but advocating for his candidacy is not. Promoting reformism as an end in itself, which is wat sanders is doing has long been restrictable here, given that it doesn't seek to abolish capitalism.

[red-winter]

I'm personally not going to vote for him (I'm not going to vote, period) but I would be somewhat less annoyed if he got the ticket rather than if some reactionary nitwit like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Rand Paul did. Either way, the elections in America are a bourgeois institution which will never bring about the progress a revolution would, so there's not much for us to discuss here. No matter who wins, we'll get a scandalous Democrat reformist at best. However to the American public, Sanders is practically an insurrectionist anarchist, so I doubt he'll even make it too far. To summarize my opinion: don't particularly like him and as long as no far-right reagan-lovers get into office, I'm pretty apathetic to the elections :grin:

[General Lamontagne]

At the very worst, Sanders will get some sort of discussion going in the U.S. populace.

[etiennel]

He'd be the best winner taking into consideration the Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton, is basically a republican. However he's far from perfect and is categorically not a revolutionary. He seems quite nice tho.

[Grue]

I'm not looking forward to hearing about him again and again for the next 14 months.

[lutraphile]

I will vote for him, I will volunteer for him, I might donate to him.

No, he's not a Communist. But he's a self-proclaimed socialist- and his earlier quotes back that up even if his politics now look more like social democracy- and above all else he is the best choice America has. Anyone who thinks that revolution is anywhere in the near future, or that the Peace and Justice Party or whatever else is about to get mainstream media attention, is deluded. America has a two party system and is a very right wing country. Sanders would do us a great service just by de-stigmatizing the socialist label.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm sure Sanders is a 'nice' person and some of his ideas are lovely but I think the point here is two-fold: when you have no power (relative to the office you are trying to attain) and no hope of acheiving that office you can say pretty much anything. Secondly, if by some miracle the US woke up in 2016 to President Sanders he would be able to change fuck all.

So, wrong candidate and for the purposes of socialists, the wrong office to use for propaganda purposes. I would think that Congress and House of Representatives seats represent a better propaganda target for socialists in the US.

I would like to say one more thing and it's not really related to Sanders specifically:

it's a really, really fucking bad habit on the left to dismiss people not with some critique of their actual ideas, but by pigeon-holing and labelling them as this or that - 'democratic socialist'; 'social democrat'; 'liberal' or whatever. I have always found that this is really a neat way for left sects to differentiate their own little ideas as 'revolutionary', versus the 'reformist' or 'liberal' ideas of everybody else. In reality, there is a lot more fluidity and grey area between different ideologies and methods of action. I have found it a lot more liberating to actually engage with people's ideas on a critical level, rather than simply labelling and dismissing people.

Dividing up the world into the damned and the saved is, I think, a strategy for disaster.

[mushroompizza]

The Socialist Democrats are Social Dems? How? And Bernie said he was a socialist not a social dem.

[Armchair Partisan]

The Socialist Democrats are Social Dems? How? And Bernie said he was a socialist not a social dem.

Ah, well, if he said so, I guess we can do nothing but to take him on his word.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Actually, I think we should take him on his word. What he describes as "socialism", though, is the "socialism" of Norman Thomas (or Jeane Kirkpatrick), in other words that particularly American brand of Cold War social-democracy that somehow manages to be worse in terms of being an imperialist scumfuck than liberals (a sort of American Craxism).

[Sewer Socialist]

Sewer socialism

[Sewer Socialist]

No, that sounds too cool, like a red version of C.H.U.D.s or something.

[Fire]

Ugh, this shit was so prevalent that r/socialism actually had to put up a PSA that Sanders WAS NOT A REAL SOCIALIST.

That being said....

Even if Sanders is really nothing more than a social democrat (which are a dime a dozen outside of the States), Sanders and his campaign will have at least one positive effect: He may be able to finally help Americans get over their loathing of the word 'socialism'. Yes, Sanders' 'socialism' is a naught but a highly diluted social democracy....but it just might help the word 'socialism' break throught the Great Red Wall of American political discourse.

And hey, once 'socialism' is no longer an automatic dirty word, that means that more people will be willing to actually research the subject.

It's a start.

Then again, maybe I'm just thinking overly positive here.

Also, I'm drunk.

Well there is that I guess. I might vote for him in the primary, not that voting matters.

Either way the important thing is to keep agitating, no matter who gets in to office.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

This guy called himself a socialist back in the 1980s, not yesterday, not last year, not the year before that. But back when he was a fairly insignificant politician, not as a senator. The word wouldn't ever come up aside from attack ads.

[JayBro47]

But the Iraq War of '03? Supporting Israel is problematic but then there's supporting the Iraq War Problematic.

[JayBro47]

Neo-Cons weren't just "Zionists" they're aggressive, Likudnik, Hegemonists (read: PNAC) and Interventionists. They wanted Israel and America to be Austria-Hungary, but more than that they wanted to push Israel to "the right," while their foreign policy also included interventionism globally be it in Yugoslavia or North Korea / Iraq / Iran all at once (3 countries which have no axis and have no regional unity short of "not liking the USA")

[JayBro47]

Actually, I think we should take him on his word. What he describes as "socialism", though, is the "socialism" of Norman Thomas (or Jeane Kirkpatrick), in other words that particularly American brand of Cold War social-democracy that somehow manages to be worse in terms of being an imperialist scumfuck than liberals (a sort of American Craxism).


Funny, Jeanne Kirkpatrick opposed the Post-Cold War "War in Iraq" and so forth, wanted America to come home from it's imperial outreach and close the draw bridge. Obviously didn't understand how Globalized Neo-Liberalism didn't allow for that. Pat Buchanan is another example.

You keep criticizing the Middle Class, etc. But we see how the Middle Class and Working Class is much weaker since the 1990's and Neo-Liberalism.

Also, is the point of Occupy Wall Street not 99% Versus 1%, meaning including the Upper Middle Class to the Middle and Working Class against the Ultra-Oligarchs?

So his "uphold the middle-class" position isn't really different from that, in that regard.

[JayBro47]

You know who else is interesting? Rick Santorum.

He is now pushing a Populist, anti-Wall Street appeal. He's like the right-side Coin of Sanders.

I suppose both are anti-Oligarch and anti-Neo-Liberalism, Free-Trade and "Outsourcing" Sander the Social-Dem and Santorum the Populist-Conservative.

Rick Santorum pushing for US-Manufacturing and so on. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/04/28/rick-santorums-blue-collar-conservatism-n1830433

Interesting

[JayBro47]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/24/in-iowa-santorum-previews-blue-collar-pitch-for-2016/

[Left-Wing Nutjob]

Sounds like Sanders is the kind of "socialist" who thinks that a higher minimum wage, universal health care, and a somewhat higher income tax is what makes socialism. Well, I guess to the conventional wisdom in America, that makes him a flamin' hot Red! :rolleyes:

Oh, and he has no chance of beating the Clinton Machine (TM). I'll pass.

[leninhipster]

he's a social democrat, not a socialist

[sev1988]

I would vote for Sanders, if only to stave off the inevitable onslaught that would happen if a Republican got elected. That being said, I hold no illusions long-term that Sanders is the answer.


You know who else is interesting? Rick Santorum.

He is now pushing a Populist, anti-Wall Street appeal. He's like the right-side Coin of Sanders.

I suppose both are anti-Oligarch and anti-Neo-Liberalism, Free-Trade and "Outsourcing" Sander the Social-Dem and Santorum the Populist-Conservative.

Rick Santorum pushing for US-Manufacturing and so on.

Interesting

Wow that is interesting. Never thought I'd see a Republican in this day and age supporting domestic policies like that. That being said I wonder how realistic his goals are given the impact of automation plus Neo-Liberalism on U.S. manufacturing.

[John Nada]

Wow that is interesting. Never thought I'd see a Republican in this day and age supporting domestic policies like that. That being said I wonder how realistic his goals are given the impact of automation plus Neo-Liberalism on U.S. manufacturing.Fuck JayBro47. That dipshit can go to hell.

Santorum's grandfather and his family back in Italy were all Communists to the max. It's not surprising that he'd opportunistically rip off some populist rhetoric. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/11/rick-santorum-s-italian-family-speaks-out.html Like I've said, a lot of conservatives are fucking opportunists who'd say whatever to get elected.

[Bee]

Bernie Sanders is a war-mongering Welfare capitalist that is seeking the Democratic Party nomination.
If we vote and campaign for left-candidates let them be candidates from genuine socialist parties.

[sev1988]

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that.