Besides Sanders, who are some socialists that ran as Democrats?

[DekuScrub]

I think Upton Sinclair did.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Bernie Sanders is not a socialist.

[DekuScrub]

Socialism is a big tent.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Barack Obama, according to conservatives. :lol:

[G4b3n]

No liberals allowed in our big tent. Sorry.

[DekuScrub]

He's a social democrat, which, like it or not, is part of the socialist tradition.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A social democrat is just a super-liberal.

[John Nada]

A famous one is Eugene Debs. Got 5% of the vote from prison, because he was an actual socialist.
He's a social democrat, which, like it or not, is part of the socialist tradition.Social Democracy used to be a synonym for socialism and communism. Social Democrat was what communists used to call themselves. You know what changed that? The social democrats who opposed revolution threw their support behind WWI and afterwards supported violent counterrevolution against communists.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A famous one is Eugene Debs. Got 5% of the vote from prison, because he was an actual socialist.
But none of his presidential campaigns were as a Democrat. They were all with Social Democracy of America or the Socialist Party of America. Debs did previously win election to the Indiana General Assembly as a Democrat, though, but that was before he became a socialist.

[John Nada]

But none of his presidential campaigns were as a Democrat. They were all with Social Democracy of America or the Socialist Party of America. Debs did previously win election to the Indiana General Assembly as a Democrat, though, but that was before he became a socialist.I need to pay attention more.:o

I don't see what's the op's point. The Democrats are not socialists. They aren't even social democrats. Far more Democrat slave owners have been elected president than socialist even ran. That a right-wing imperialist capitalist party, which prided itself on anti-communism during the Cold War(cough, Vietnam), doesn't run socialist candidates, shouldn't be a surprise.

Sinclair ran during the Great Depression when the labor movement was just short of insurrection and the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members. That environment lent itself to the progressive(not socialist) wing of the Democrats getting influence. The progressive's influences on the Democratic Party dropped after FDR's(not the saint he's made out to be) death, came back in the 60's, but began it's movement towards being sidelined in the 70's, and virtually ignored in the 80's-present. The progressive wing is increasingly ignored more and more.

[Luís Henrique]

He's a social democrat

Is he?

The social democrats that I know are members of social democratic parties, which are parties with strong ties to unionism. Sanders seems to me to be either a Democrat, ie, a member of a party that is decidedly not a social democratic party, or an independent, that is not a member of any party.

What exactly does he do that makes him a social democrat in your opinion?

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Jacob]

I think you mean "Social-democrat that runs as a socialist". So many western parties and politicians that call themselves socialists are really just socdems.

[Sewer Socialist]

I think you mean "Social-democrat that runs as a socialist". So many western parties and politicians that call themselves socialists are really just socdems.

I think this is the source of OP's confusion. These parties are often referred to as "socialist", by themselves and others.

When social democrats are in power, all they really try to do is institute social programs - welfare, minimum wage increases, etc. Then there's an economic recession, every 5-10 years or so, and then the social programs are taken away until next time. They have always failed to even try to institute anything other than a softer, gentler capitalism.

For this reason, since they do not attempt to institute socialism, they are not considered socialist. And even then, sometimes, they fail to even make for a softer, gentler capitalism. These parties are often pro-war (the bourgeois and imperialist wars), pro-nation, and pro-market, including their famous collective failure to oppose World War 1. Rather than uniting internationally in opposition to World War 1, they chose to support the war against each other and side with their national bourgeoisie.

[StromboliFucker666]

Can someone here actually tell me what Sanders is exactly? I've heard everything from reformist socialist to liberal. Sorry if he's went into detail about it somewhere and I just missed it.

[Creative Destruction]

There's an actual reformist tendency of socialism that is separate from social democracy as a movement, but uses social democracy as a means to an end. It's fully plausible that Sanders is that kind of socialist.

[mushroompizza]

I dont get where this myth started that hes a social democrat, but hes actually a democratic socialist, but is a reformist so... :(

I think didn't all of those socialist mayors of Milwaukee do it?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Has someone pointed out he's not a real socialist yet?
Bet the tosser is into pop-punk too, sell-out POS!

[lutraphile]

Can someone here actually tell me what Sanders is exactly? I've heard everything from reformist socialist to liberal. Sorry if he's went into detail about it somewhere and I just missed it.
I'd say he's a left social democrat. He's not calling for the total abolition of capitalism, but he's taking positions that most modern "social democratic" parties in Europe aren't as well- supporting Greece voting no, opposing free trade, and trying to establish co-operatives as a major part of the US economy. He also supports single-payer health care, which is traditionally a socdem plank but some parties now are moving away from it.

Having said that, I do subscribe the theory of Sanders as a secret socialist. Before he was on the national stage, he called for the nationalization of major industry (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-socialist-surge-119785.html#ixzz3fKDyp0Me), defended Cuba (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/us/politics/bernie-sanderss-revolutionary-roots-were-nurtured-in-60s-vermont.html) and the Sardinistas (http://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/sanders-in-1985-sandinista-leader-impressive-castro-totally#.tdyre9rqV). He was also a part of the gay rights movement (http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago) before even most socialists.

Those claiming he is pro-Israel point to such things as him signing a letter for their 60th anniversary and conveniently ignore that he posted on his website (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/legislation/issue/war-and-peace) "Sanders believes the Israeli attacks that killed hundreds of innocent people – including many women and children – in bombings of civilian neighborhoods and UN controlled schools, hospitals, and refugee camps were disproportionate, and the widespread killing of civilians is completely unacceptable. Israel's actions took an enormous human toll, and appeared to strengthen support for Hamas and may well be sowing the seeds for even more hatred, war and destruction in future years" and that he was the first Senator to refuse to attend Netanyahu's speech.

[lutraphile]

And I'll add (I can't edit for some reason, no idea why) that even if he were just a bog-standard social democrat, I still think that's worthy of support. I've heard a lot of people compare him to Kucinich, the left's token candidate last time. But Kucinich never got above 2 or 3 percent in Iowa or New Hampshire and was seen as a bit of a joke. Sanders is closing in on 35% in both. This is different. This is a candidate who is getting real momentum, and a good showing by him could open up a real opportunity for the left, be it through entryism or starting a third party.

[Cliff Paul]

Bet the tosser is into pop-punk too, sell-out POS!

I'll fight you

[StromboliFucker666]

So he's basically a reformist socialist that is trying to at least get America to social democracy before he implements actual socialist policies?

[mushroompizza]

Yeah basically, thats what Ive gotten from his interviews.

[StromboliFucker666]

Yeah basically, thats what Ive gotten from his interviews.
He has a noble goal then. Not grounded in reality but still noble. The bourgeois will do everything they can to stop his reforms, probably even kill him if it comes down to it.

[keavy]

Eugene McCarthy had some socialist ideas

[Working Class Hero]

There was on guy that an article talked about a few weeks back, I'll try to find it.

One of the main criticisms a lot of Democratic Socialists have levied against Sanders (and I think rightfully so) is that he's not running through an independent Socialist Party or as a straight-up Independent (spoiler, even though that's impossible because he'd never get any electoral votes). Debs said that socialists should run as independents or in a Socialist party, and Sanders has a portrait of Debs on his office wall, much to the chagrin of many DemSocs.

What you have to remember is that there IS NO major socialist third party in this country at this time. With people like Chomsky and Cornell either partially or fully supporting him, he's the best tactical vote there is right now.

[#FF0000]

he's the best tactical vote there is right now.

Towards what end, though? He's completely isolated in his own party and there's no labor or socialist movement in the United States right now. So what do you think Sanders could possibly achieve?

[Klaatu]

A famous one is Eugene Debs. Got 5% of the vote from prison, because he was an actual socialist.

I just happened to be reading about Debs... he was sent to prison for speaking out against WWI the so-called "Great War"

What sort of country keeps political prisoners?
What sort of country tortures prisoners?
What sort of country invades other countries without cause?

The USA, of course!

[lutraphile]

Towards what end, though? He's completely isolated in his own party and there's no labor or socialist movement in the United States right now. So what do you think Sanders could possibly achieve?
Creating one. Be it a sort of entryist left-wing tea party or a third party, Sanders has made it clear he wants to start a broader movement.

[#FF0000]

Creating one. Be it a sort of entryist left-wing tea party or a third party, Sanders has made it clear he wants to start a broader movement.

Well, I'm all for that, kind of. I don't think that such a movement can start from the top-down like Sanders seems to. Nor do I think "entryism" is ever a good idea, be it within other parties or non-revolutionary unions. Nor do I think a third party is actually viable in the context of the United States, because existing as a party at all necessarily means taking power and governing at some level.

It's a pretty big problem we're dealing with in regard to the political question.

[N. Tweed]

Sanders does have a long history of activism, dating back more than 40 years. I do think that should be taken into account when assessing what he is (and dismissing his campaign as hopelessly reformist). there are parallels between the Sanders campaign and the European anti-austerity movements. obviously we'd like to see these groups "radicalized" -- but nothing like this was happening in the First World before, say, 2011.

[Patchd]

Sanders does have a long history of activism, dating back more than 40 years. I do think that should be taken into account when assessing what he is (and dismissing his campaign as hopelessly reformist). there are parallels between the Sanders campaign and the European anti-austerity movements. obviously we'd like to see these groups "radicalized" -- but nothing like this was happening in the First World before, say, 2011.

But the European anti-austerity movements were a broad church of anti-capitalists and pro-capitalists, the latter having a lot more influence and the former delegating a lot of responsibilities and authority to the pro-capitalists as part of their general unity struggle, as is generally the case in united fronts. The European anti-austerity movements were in essence a farce, as it proposed outdated social democratic principles to a capitalism where the conditions do not precede social democracy being a viable force (perhaps only yet) for the defence of capitalism and the furthering of working class interests within the confines of capitalism. Greece is the best example of the betrayal of the working class by the anti-austerity movement and all because of the act of saviour to capitalism's own contradictions.

Also, simply because our movement has been hopelessly absent as of late doesn't mean to lend political support to just anything that pops up that ruling political paradigms feel threatened by, that may only confine us further in hopelessness.

7 Things I Learned From Chatting to Jeremy Corbyn ~ Aaron Bastani (http://wire.novaramedia.com/2015/07/7-things-i-learned-from-chatting-to-jeremy-corbyn/)

"Ever since then it’s been clear that in an increasingly globalised economy, social democracy – let alone socialism – in one country simply can’t work. If Corbyn was to be prime minister after the next general election in 2020 there would be significant capital flight and an attack on the pound. In response to that his answer was wilfully naive: “We’ve got to say ‘hang on, we live in a democracy’ and if the people of this country vote for an economic strategy which is about redistribution of wealth…then that’s that.”

Only it isn’t. The point is globalised capitalism means nations aren’t sovereign and the old repositories of democratic accountability are no longer, if they ever were, up to the job. Social democrats like Corbyn (still) don’t seem to have an answer to that."

[Art Vandelay]

Creating one. Be it a sort of entryist left-wing tea party or a third party, Sanders has made it clear he wants to start a broader movement.

Just keep struggling to build that amorphous third party that you can subsume and liquidate yourself in - I'm sure this time around things will work out differently. The ostensible revolutionary left, protectors of american capital.

The orientation of Marxists towards Sanders and those who call for the formation of a new mass labor party, is no different than Cannon and the American SWP's line on the 1948 Wallace campaign.

The traditional two-party system in the United States has been very well suited for normal times. The ruling capitalists couldn’t ask for anything better than this system which absorbs shocks and grievances by shifting people from one bourgeois party to another. But that system can blow up in time of crisis. The aggravation of the crisis which we all see ahead can shake up the whole American political situation, so that the old two-party system will no longer suffice to serve the needs of the American bourgeoisie...

The less it becomes possible to mobilize the workers’ votes for one or the other of these two old bourgeois parties, the more impelling and powerful will become the urge of the workers to found a party of their own or to seek a substitute for it. That mood of the workers will create a condition wherein American capitalism will objectively require a pseudo-radical party to divert the workers from a party of their own...

Next time, the role played by Roosevelt—which was a role of salvation for American capitalism—will most likely require a new party. In the essence of the matter that is what Wallace’s party is. Wallace is the, as yet, unacknowledged, candidate for the role of diverting the workers’ movement for independent political action into the channel of bourgeois politics dressed up with radical demagogy which costs nothing. That is what we have to say, and that’s what we have to fight—vigorously and openly, and with no qualifications at all. We have to be 100% anti-Wallaceites. We have to stir up the workers against this imposter, and explain to them that they will never get a party of their own by accepting substitute...

The slogan: “Build An Independent Labor Party!” is a slogan for the class mobilization of the workers. In some incomprehensible way this seems to have been transformed in the minds of some comrades as a mere demand to break the two-party system of the capitalists. This is not the same thing at all. It means merely a bourgeois party shake-up and not a class alignment...

Now, a break-up of the two party parliamentary system in America is undoubtedly a good thing. It destroys the fetish of the trade union bureaucracy to the effect that it is impossible to operate on the political field outside the traditional pattern. Splits in the two old bourgeois parties are bound to shake up the labor bureaucracy, loosen things up and create a more favorable situation for agitation for the formation of a labor party. But this break-up of the two-party system and splits in the bourgeois parties come about under the pressure of social crisis. These are not our tasks. Bourgeois parties are not the arena for our operation. Our specific task is the class mobilization of the workers against not only the two old parties, but any other capitalist parties which might appear. - James P Cannon.

[Sharia Lawn]

Creating one. Be it a sort of entryist left-wing tea party or a third party, Sanders has made it clear he wants to start a broader movement.

No, an electoral campaign is not a social movement. I have no idea why frequent posters on this forum keep implying this.

[Hatshepsut]

No social movement, but I would consider a Sanders presidency, in the Lotto jackpot such a thing would be in our U.S. political cesspool, a gift from the gods. He wouldn't accomplish anything, but he would keep the House of Representatives, which looks like it may remain in a Tea Party vise for the next 20 years, in check. If we get a Republican in the Oval Office we're probably going to go to war with Iran—with the House driving belligerency this time rather than the president as was the case with Bush and Iraq. Those who are in-country without papers can expect deportations to recommence.

I'm well aware there's nothing revolutionary in supporting an establishment; indeed, doing so is normally counter-revolutionary. But if there's no revolution going on now or over the horizon, can the counter-revolutionary charge really be laid? Realism suggests we may have to wait 50 years before world conditions finally get screwy enough to make the columns on the bank buildings quake. That's a thing I don't know; those who favor revolution will want to seize the earliest opportunity whenever it comes. But it's not cooking right now.

If that's true, I don't see any reason to abandon the traditional field to its worst right-wing rompers. I would rather have Hillary than Trump, Walker, or Jeb Bush in there. Keeping Republicans out of the White House will be tough next year as U.S. electorates have been in a pattern of flipping from Dem to GOP and back at 8-year intervals the way the earth's magnetic poles reverse. We should try to block a switch to the GOP as a service to lower-class peoples who will have to live with results until substantive change becomes possible.

[flaming bolshevik]

The man is a liberal.

[Sharia Lawn]

No social movement, but I would consider a Sanders presidency, in the Lotto jackpot such a thing would be in our U.S. political cesspool, a gift from the gods. He wouldn't accomplish anything, but he would keep the House of Representatives, which looks like it may remain in a Tea Party vise for the next 20 years, in check. If we get a Republican in the Oval Office we're probably going to go to war with Iran—with the House driving belligerency this time rather than the president as was the case with Bush and Iraq. Those who are in-country without papers can expect deportations to recommence.

I'm well aware there's nothing revolutionary in supporting an establishment; indeed, doing so is normally counter-revolutionary. But if there's no revolution going on now or over the horizon, can the counter-revolutionary charge really be laid? Realism suggests we may have to wait 50 years before world conditions finally get screwy enough to make the columns on the bank buildings quake. That's a thing I don't know; those who favor revolution will want to seize the earliest opportunity whenever it comes. But it's not cooking right now.

If that's true, I don't see any reason to abandon the traditional field to its worst right-wing rompers. I would rather have Hillary than Trump, Walker, or Jeb Bush in there. Keeping Republicans out of the White House will be tough next year as U.S. electorates have been in a pattern of flipping from Dem to GOP and back at 8-year intervals the way the earth's magnetic poles reverse. We should try to block a switch to the GOP as a service to lower-class peoples who will have to live with results until substantive change becomes possible.

This is rank lesser-evilism. Why post on a "revolutionary" forum if your primary concern is with "checking the Tea Party" rather than "accomplishing anything"?