A Sanders rally (Again)

[RedQuarks]

We've all had the Sanders discussion before numerous times. Yes, it is true of course that he is not a true socialist or leftist, but that he rather is a more moderate social democrat. Though, while I admire those of you who have wiped your hands with the electoral process, I can't help but at least support Sanders -- at least it means some Americans are moderately receptive to slightly left ideas. I do think that we should use the capitalist institutions that exist and use them to the greatest extent to create awareness. That being said, I attended the Sanders rally in Reading, Pennsylvania today out of interest, I wasn't surprised, but wasn't pleased by his supporters.

Sanders himself has reasonable things to say, but loses me at his views on capitalism, military, and nationalism (so most things). Still, like I have said, I prefer to at least support the left. I also recognize that of course he won't revitalize the American left, I'm not a 2008 Obama supporter. Some of his supporters, however, are terrible. I volunteered today to help with the rally, which went well, and some supporters were apparently well educated, and most were relatively kind. However, I encountered my fair share of ignorance, ranging from Nationalists to those who think he is actually a socialist and that they are revolutionary, to flat out assholes who have no idea what he is saying. On our way out, we encountered some of the latter, who refused to allow us to leave a parking garage as they believed we had gone the wrong way. A real leftist would accept that we had gone the wrong way (because the garage was quite small and we couldn't turn) and would have allowed a fellow human to leave, but these idiots insisted that we were "special."

So what did I take away from this? Sanders isn't representative of a true left movement, and that many of his supporters are just as bad as the Trump idiots. I must continue to say though that a weak Social Democrat is better than nothing, and that I will support him because to be fair, he is the furthest left most Americans are willing to go. I would have liked to believe this could be something in the right direction, but I have now recognized that the Sanders movement isn't going anywhere. I think I too am done with the electoral process, after all any political change in human history has come from collective action, not from above.

[Laika]

I'm struggling to see either how Sanders could:
a) beat Trump
b) deal with a Republican Congress

...assuming the CIA take him on a day trip to Dallas and hide in a grassy knoll.

he just comes accross as "too fluffy", the kind of person who will be crushed pretty easily by the mind-numbingly unethical decisions people have to make when they become president (regardless of which system it is). Given the level of institutional resistence, I'm thinking you'd need a jack booted militant a-hole to to be President simply drag the US kicking and screaming to achieve a moderate level of European Social Democracy and have free health care within the *cough* word of the US constitution. we'd have to overturn decades of right-ward drift. being a nice old "cuddly" grandpa, giving sweets to children doesn't seem like it will cut it.

I'm being cruel but I think the world is. It's not that I don't like the man or don't want him and people to try, but I worry what happens when the **** hits the fan and all the niceness in the world won't get you out of trouble. we need "hope and change" but we need results too.

[Homo Songun]

I'm struggling to see either how Sanders could:
a) beat Trump
b) deal with a Republican Congress

...assuming the CIA take him on a day trip to Dallas and hide in a grassy knoll.

he just comes accross as "too fluffy", the kind of person who will be crushed pretty easily by the mind-numbingly unethical decisions people have to make when they become president (regardless of which system it is). Given the level of institutional resistence, I'm thinking you'd need a jack booted militant a-hole to to be President simply drag the US kicking and screaming to achieve a moderate level of European Social Democracy and have free health care within the *cough* word of the US constitution. we'd have to overturn decades of right-ward drift. being a nice old "cuddly" grandpa, giving sweets to children doesn't seem like it will cut it.

I'm being cruel but I think the world is. It's not that I don't like the man or don't want him and people to try, but I worry what happens when the **** hits the fan and all the niceness in the world won't get you out of trouble. we need "hope and change" but we need results too.

Sanders' personality would not matter either way, because social change has never been driven by the electoral arena or its officials. That said, my strong suspicion is that people who have managed to claw their way to that level of power are generally tough motherfuckers, if not outright sociopaths.

[RedSonRising]

He's someone who is popularizing ideas about the gains working people can make when they stand up to capital. Universal healthcare, free education, the means for a dignified life-these are not socialist per se, but they are necessary features of a socialist society, and they exist in the rest of the industrialized world. He's also raising awareness on the US's history of brutal regime change in the Middle East and Latin America, and treating climate change like the crisis that it is. All of that lends itself to people developing a political consciousness much more ready to embrace socialism and realize that the class system is bullshit.

[Homo Songun]

Sure, it is a two way street, but being precedes consciousness as any dime store Marxist can tell you.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think the takeaway is that there is a bigger but undefined shift going on in the US that is a reflection of things going on more generally in the world. For the first time since the early 90s, there is a mainstream opening around the question of neoliberalism, in the form of the politics of the New Democrats anyway. Corbin is very similar. Both Sanders and Corbin inspired working class and youth support (i.e. a section of those who have seen nothing but losses for the last generation and the generation that grew up at that time, not knowing any gains). So they get a lot of enthusiasm from young people who are worried and impatient (in a good way... unlike many baby boomers and older gen-X who have been conditioned to expect less and/or are doing ok-enough that they are more afraid of losing more than they are confident to try and win anything) as well as people who were/are part of unions or still hold onto pre-New Democrat/Labour politics and have felt politically abandoned and isolated for the last 20-30 years.

Both Sanders and Corbin would have been "middle of the road" in their respective parties in the 1980s. So the economic crash produced modest movements in both countries that reject the orthodoxy of the later half of neoliberalism and this is sort of the electoral reflection of it.

In terms of Sanders, the mainstream press has oddly been talking about a "rise in class consciousness" (odd for them to throw that idea around and odd in a country where the term "working class" was not uttered in mainstream discourse unless talking about other countries or the pre-world war US... 10 years ago we were "all middle class"... I guess they all had to wikipedia articles about socialism when Sanders got some support). But I think really it's a sort of rise in political awareness of the divide between social democratic politics (which most everyday Democratic Party supporters hold) and neoliberalism.

So the real question is how do revolutionaries deal with this - given a continuing lack of independent class organization, low levels of strikes and struggle, not to mention just small numbers of radicals? Many people in the US rejected neoliberalism at the end of the first Clinton term and this was represented by the anti-Globalization movement. But it was quickly confused and fell apart when new political questions and events happened with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars (the common idea of the anti-globalization folks was that corporations were more powerful than states and that states were no longer relevant... oops-war, imperialism, nationalism, etc). So radicals don't have much control over how things develop. But the best outcome would be an increase in struggles, both social and economic. Hopefully this is where the Sander's enthusiasm goes after the election. If a section of them become involved in movement building or demanding more from their Clinton-supporting business-union leaders, then we might begin to see more of a rise in real class consciousness and class organizing.

Radicals can have a role in this, but we aren't in a position to really control the variables or even consistently intervene in the terms of debate. But we can try in subjective ways - build local struggles than can help build networks and working class organizations that will help put the class in a better position when struggle does break out; try and position revolutionary ideas as part of the debate among the broader debates among rank and file union-members and community activists etc (in practical terms: create independent opposition from below to NGOs and Union Leaders on the one hand and add revolutionary ideas to debates about gentrification, inequality, racism etc).

[Homo Songun]

In terms of Sanders, the mainstream press has oddly been talking about a "rise in class consciousness" (odd for them to throw that idea around and odd in a country where the term "working class" was not uttered in mainstream discourse unless talking about other countries or the pre-world war US... 10 years ago we were "all middle class"... I guess they all had to wikipedia articles about socialism when Sanders got some support). But I think really it's a sort of rise in political awareness of the divide between social democratic politics (which most everyday Democratic Party supporters hold) and neoliberalism.

So the real question is how do revolutionaries deal with this - given a continuing lack of independent class organization, low levels of strikes and struggle, not to mention just small numbers of radicals?

What is the word 'this' referring to in the sentence above?


Many people in the US rejected neoliberalism at the end of the first Clinton term and this was represented by the anti-Globalization movement. But it was quickly confused and fell apart when new political questions and events happened with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars (the common idea of the anti-globalization folks was that corporations were more powerful than states and that states were no longer relevant... oops-war, imperialism, nationalism, etc). So radicals don't have much control over how things develop. But the best outcome would be an increase in struggles, both social and economic. Hopefully this is where the Sander's enthusiasm goes after the election. If a section of them become involved in movement building or demanding more from their Clinton-supporting business-union leaders, then we might begin to see more of a rise in real class consciousness and class organizing.

I hear similar talking points from the ISO all the time. But the ISO drastically overstates the break between the 1999 WTO protests and the antiwar movement in the early 2000s. I can hardly blame them. They were way less influential in the latter than the former. I doubt the average radical sees the differences in such stark contrast though. Both phenomena are explainable by various theories in common currency within the left. The traditional Marxist-Leninist concept of imperialism as late-stage capitalism is not the least of them.


Radicals can have a role in this, but we aren't in a position to really control the variables or even consistently intervene in the terms of debate. But we can try in subjective ways - build local struggles than can help build networks and working class organizations that will help put the class in a better position when struggle does break out; try and position revolutionary ideas as part of the debate among the broader debates among rank and file union-members and community activists etc (in practical terms: create independent opposition from below to NGOs and Union Leaders on the one hand and add revolutionary ideas to debates about gentrification, inequality, racism etc).

OK, 'create indendent opposition from below' to the union bureaucrats, I get it. But to NGOs? NGOs aren't mass organizations. They don't typically have a class character. So what would that even look like, especially when compared to the trade union movement?

[Larry The Antifa Man]

It's great that Americans are starting to shift more to the left, and I do think people like Sanders and Michael Moore are somewhat responsible for this, but we shouldn't just sit on the sidelines and timidly support Sanders. We should take this opportunity to introduce to these Bernie supporters to radical leftist ideologies. Introduce them to Das Kapital. Introduce them to The Conquest Of Bread. Introduce them to leftist YouTube channels, or whatever. That's how I got into anarchism. I used to be a social democrat (this was a few years before Sanders was running for president, but I probably would have been a Bernie supporter, had I still retained the same views to this day), but when I watched videos by anarchist YouTubers, I became an anarchist, a feminist, a revolutionary, pretty much all at once. Let's take advantage of this "leftist" trend. Don't let the opportunity pass.

[Red Terror Dr.]

If Sanders wins (which is not likely) and he gives us universal healthcare --- that is something that is better than what we have now. Because in the future the right-wing may try to take universal healthcare away from us and then that will bring a revolutionary crisis--- A revolutionary atmosphere. Sometimes you can't get everything you want but you may get something which is better than nothing.

[Verneinung]

The deal with Sanders now is with whether or not he exposes all of the dirt in US politics more than he already has. The enemy of your enemy is your friend, and in Sanders case, if he can take a huge chunk out of the Democratic party, the liberal media, Hillary Clinton, fraud and manipulation of elections, voting, nomination process, etc., and really the system as a whole, it is a plus.

He has already broke through a lot of blocks that previously were thought rather impossible. He got over the massive block from the media, political correctness, big money, Super-Tuesdays, the DNC, the establishment Democrats, etc., and if he loses it will likely be because of stripping and flipping of voters/votes. The latter was supposed to be impossible within the system, since it is all designed to keep candidates like him from even getting to the point of where they can take this type of message of grassroots, bottom up revolution and change for the workers and poor against the corporate establishment, to voters. Usually a person can't get the money to run, can't get in the position to run, etc. And I think it might be a once in a lifetime deal. So, maybe passing it up might be the biggest mistake, but I hope I'm wrong about that- about it being a situation where people have been begging to be saved from the ocean like the old God-save-me joke, and pass up on this old boat waiting for a yacht, when the yacht is unlikely to come.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What is the word 'this' referring to in the sentence above?a situation where there is growing splits among liberals, one that favors radical politics but is not there yet.[/QUOTE]



OK, 'create indendent opposition from below' to the union bureaucrats, I get it. But to NGOs? NGOs aren't mass organizations. They don't typically have a class character. So what would that even look like, especially when compared to the trade union movement?this is mostly a comment directed at local urban organizing in my experience. Service NGOs are some of the biggest employers in my city and the end up running the politics and movements when the police shoot someone or when there is a ritzy redevelopment project that working class and poor residents oppose. They also rely on support from the local Democratic Party and funding from rich doners. They do some positive things in a charity/service sense, but are also ultimately a buffer against more independent community organizing efforts. They also young radicals into working for "pragmatic" solutions to the problems of capitalism.

i think on a practical level urban radicals need to figure out ways to build organizing at the grassroots that can be ongoing but is democratic and organic and, unlike NGOs, is not tied to local business and the Democratic Party.

[Konikow]

https://youtu.be/RSeJccIjGb8

[pastradamus]

If Sanders wins (which is not likely) and he gives us universal healthcare --- that is something that is better than what we have now. Because in the future the right-wing may try to take universal healthcare away from us and then that will bring a revolutionary crisis--- A revolutionary atmosphere. Sometimes you can't get everything you want but you may get something which is better than nothing.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Nobody believes if Sanders actually gets elected we'll get all his promises - but if we even get ONE - ONE single manifest from Bernie it will be more than has been done for Workers since FDR, Numerous decades later. A very honest, positive post from RTdr.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Not to be a "purity troll" or some such, but I don't see why the Left should support Bernie "Military Option is Always a Possibility" Sanders, given that he is not a genuine socialist revolutionary and he has in fact made it abundantly clear that he wants to reform and strengthen the capitalist state, keep scapegoating migrants and escalate drone and proxy wars. If you are a revolutionary socialist, vote for one. I have heard about several marginal left-wing parties running, and no I don't mean Jill Stein, so pick one and throw your vote away. Basically the argument in favor of Bernie "[Flood of Global South Migrants] Would Make Everybody in America Poorer" Sanders comes down to a nested lesser evilism argument -- Democrats are less evil than Republicans, and Sanders is less evil than Hillary Clinton. But if you buy into this pragmatic or tactical voting paradigm, there is nothing then to keep you from voting for Clinton when she likely gets the nomination and Sanders endorses her. It's not the "audacity of hope"; it's hope in the perfectly "realistic" view that capitalism is going to keep working okay. True audacity is embracing the hopelessness of a Left victory in another "hope and change" man. The events of 2017-2021 are not likely to unfold with incredibly different results whether they pass under a President Trump or a President Sanders, anymore than preventing a President McCain stopped "rogue state roll-back" or avoiding a President Romney prevented a health care reform based on Romneycare.

[Homo Songun]

Not to be a "purity troll" or some such, but I don't see why the Left should support Bernie "Military Option is Always a Possibility" Sanders, given that he is not a genuine socialist revolutionary and he has in fact made it abundantly clear that he wants to reform and strengthen the capitalist state, keep scapegoating migrants and escalate drone and proxy wars. If you are a revolutionary socialist, vote for one. I have heard about several marginal left-wing parties running, and no I don't mean Jill Stein, so pick one and throw your vote away. Basically the argument in favor of Bernie "[Flood of Global South Migrants] Would Make Everybody in America Poorer" Sanders comes down to a nested lesser evilism argument -- Democrats are less evil than Republicans, and Sanders is less evil than Hillary Clinton. But if you buy into this pragmatic or tactical voting paradigm, there is nothing then to keep you from voting for Clinton when she likely gets the nomination and Sanders endorses her. It's not the "audacity of hope"; it's hope in the perfectly "realistic" view that capitalism is going to keep working okay. True audacity is embracing the hopelessness of a Left victory in another "hope and change" man. The events of 2017-2021 are not likely to unfold with incredibly different results whether they pass under a President Trump or a President Sanders, anymore than preventing a President McCain stopped "rogue state roll-back" or avoiding a President Romney prevented a health care reform based on Romneycare.

I'd like Sanders to win. I hope that the FBI recommends indictment against Clinton. That said, I don't think Sanders' personal opinions on x, y, z are the most relevant part of his presidential run.

I read a couple of mainstream bourgeois pundit pieces lately that make some points worth sharing.

One, Sanders is only the latest in a series of 'protest' candidates in opposition to the centrist "consensus" that is best represented by the Clinton presidency after the terrible Dukakis result in 1988. There is a link between Dean in 2004, Bradley in 2000, Jackson in 1984, and so on. Of course the movement to elect Sanders is much, much stronger than those campaigns, which bodes something interesting.

Two, that this may be a Goldwater '64 moment for the liberal base of the Democratic party. What is meant by that is to show that ultra-conservative Barry Goldwater lost the election that year but ignited a spark that ultimately lead to the Reagan Revolution in 1980 - transforming the GOP into the monster it is today. For me personally, I'm not interested in seeing the Democrats become a working class party or anything like that, but with Marx, "nothing human is alien to me" and all that.

(I can't recall who actually published the articles, probably the Nation or something like that)

[Homo Songun]

a situation where there is growing splits among liberals, one that favors radical politics but is not there yet.


this is mostly a comment directed at local urban organizing in my experience. Service NGOs are some of the biggest employers in my city and the end up running the politics and movements when the police shoot someone or when there is a ritzy redevelopment project that working class and poor residents oppose. They also rely on support from the local Democratic Party and funding from rich doners. They do some positive things in a charity/service sense, but are also ultimately a buffer against more independent community organizing efforts. They also young radicals into working for "pragmatic" solutions to the problems of capitalism.

i think on a practical level urban radicals need to figure out ways to build organizing at the grassroots that can be ongoing but is democratic and organic and, unlike NGOs, is not tied to local business and the Democratic Party.

The degree of the NGOs' responsiveness to the Democratic machinery (or rich Democratic donors) points to the brute fact that these NGOs simply are part of the Democratic party apparatus.

That is how politics operates.

Which brings up a salient point. The traditional Leninist response to the call for "democratic and organic" organizing is to build the Party as a vanguard coordinating center of the working class and the oppressed. Well and good. To their credit, the ISO subscribes to the Leninist organizing model. (I'm biased in favor of it). My question is, how might the ISO square a democratic-centralist organizing model, which is obviously hierarchical, with the call to wrest control from the local Democratic elites "from below" ? I'm genuinely curious.

[Verneinung]

Not to be a "purity troll" or some such, but I don't see why the Left should support Bernie "Military Option is Always a Possibility" Sanders, given that he is not a genuine socialist revolutionary and he has in fact made it abundantly clear that he wants to reform and strengthen the capitalist state, keep scapegoating migrants and escalate drone and proxy wars. If you are a revolutionary socialist, vote for one. I have heard about several marginal left-wing parties running, and no I don't mean Jill Stein, so pick one and throw your vote away. Basically the argument in favor of Bernie "[Flood of Global South Migrants] Would Make Everybody in America Poorer" Sanders comes down to a nested lesser evilism argument -- Democrats are less evil than Republicans, and Sanders is less evil than Hillary Clinton. But if you buy into this pragmatic or tactical voting paradigm, there is nothing then to keep you from voting for Clinton when she likely gets the nomination and Sanders endorses her. It's not the "audacity of hope"; it's hope in the perfectly "realistic" view that capitalism is going to keep working okay. True audacity is embracing the hopelessness of a Left victory in another "hope and change" man. The events of 2017-2021 are not likely to unfold with incredibly different results whether they pass under a President Trump or a President Sanders, anymore than preventing a President McCain stopped "rogue state roll-back" or avoiding a President Romney prevented a health care reform based on Romneycare.

There is a rule, which is until they team up with the bourgeoisie. I don't care, at this point, that he is being ambiguous and walking the line as to what he will do at the convention, etc.; we, at least, have to give him a chance. Like I have already said, the enemy of your enemy is your friend. As of right now, you have a guy who is running based on grassroots movements against the bourgeoisie -- he is running on giving movements a platform, as opposed to killing, imprisoning, squashing and marginalizing them, etc., which is a decent thing to gamble for (if you are wrong, you are wrong, and if you are right, you won your first battle in God knows how long). Basically all of the policy that was specifically put in place to undermine (and make impossible) left movements, he is opposed to, including and additionally (which has been mentioned) policy to help the most vulnerable. And all of this is placed on the back of whatever movements can push these issues.

Also, Hillary versus Bernie is probably the biggest gap (by far) in policy and ideology that there has been between candidates in a competitive race, even including general Dems and Repubs (which are usually the same). She not only supports all of the disastrous domestic policy, she is about as bad as Bush/Cheney or Kissinger or similar on foreign policy, and has made it implicitly clear, in opposing Sanders and criticizing his supporters, that she is totally against the grassroots movements. And if you already assume that there will be no difference based on who is in the office, there is basically no way of looking at it and not supporting Sanders, unless you are one of those people that assume that if a far-right person is in office so much devastation, murder and war will break out (which has been the case) a revolutionary consciousness will magically pop in liberal brains out of the mist, that would be far beyond what could be built up during a Sanders presidency. Or is some other strategy of which I'm unaware?

But just in terms of caring about other people. Hillary Clinton is stealing/being given this election. And this is a person who played a fundamental role in undermining Barack Obama's foreign policy, by driving it to the right (neocon land) even more than it would have been. And Obama, to his credit, after Libya, learned his lesson, and actually saved us from some complete disasters by finally figuring things out and simply going against some things, by not falling for the "red line", false-flag, chemical weapon attack in Syria, by not providing even more weapons to terrorist organizations, by not supporting a no-fly-zone, troops, etc., all of which would have could have been even more disastrous.

Hillary and Bill are both psychopathic megalomaniacs with no conscious, no empathy and no remorse, basically like super-predators; and, if they keep avoiding the law (which it looks like Hillary is about to do once again), we at least, have to prevent them from another presidency. And if she does become president, which is likely, get ready to fight uphill and from all sides.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I'd like Sanders to win. I hope that the FBI recommends indictment against Clinton. That said, I don't think Sanders' personal opinions on x, y, z are the most relevant part of his presidential run.

I guess I'd "like" Sanders to win in the same sense that I "liked" when Obama beat McCain and Romney. But I didn't vote for Obama, I won't vote for Sanders and I don't think anyone who doesn't want more militarism and deportations or any of the other awful things inherent to capitalism should either. I grasp lesser evilism, I just refuse to let millions of hateful, ignorant Republican Party voters (or Democrats for that matter) dictate my vote (which would really only make sense in a 2 round voting system).

His "personal opinions" are the platform/policy program he's running on. How is that not relevant? It's not as if I'm talking about his favorite color or what he thinks about "Lemonade". If that's not relevant then the appeal you're left with is just some vague mentions here and there of "fighting the billionaires" and use of the label "democratic socialism". I would compare socialists supporting Sanders to that part of the African-American population who voted for Obama solely or mostly based on his ethnic heritage, and maybe this is where you see some racism on the Left: Socialists were not afraid to criticize Obama in 2008 (eg "Populist Rhetoric Conceals Pro-Corporate Policies" (http://www.socialistalternative.org/2008/03/20/democrats-raise-hope-for-change-populist-rhetoric-conceals-pro-corporate-policies/)) but when you look at the same groups now, the criticism of Sanders is almost nonexistent, or toned down & reduced to one or two lines of "something something foreign policy", and the totally anti-workers' rights, anti-human rights aspects of his platform are essentially glossed over, all because he's "our" guy, he's a Democratic Party "socialist" or oh but Hillary Clinton is worse or Trump/Cruz is worse. But I believe some of those same socialist activists were still, at least a little bit, shocked somehow when they would go into an Afro-American neighborhood with Caucasian persuasion and newspapers criticizing Obama and someone would throw it on the ground and stomp on it. At least Obama had/has going for him the fact that he actually is "Black" (even if some have tried to deny him that (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ben-carson-president-obama-raised-white-doesn-t-understand-black-n524176)); Bernie Sanders on the other hand, not being an actual socialist, is running on an utter illusion.


There is a rule, which is until they team up with the bourgeoisie. I don't care, at this point, that he is being ambiguous and walking the line as to what he will do at the convention, etc.; we, at least, have to give him a chance.

He's already declared, I think more than once, that he will support Clinton if/when she's nominated and that he's a lifelong Democrat. (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/277086-sanders-will-be-democrat-for-life-campaign-says) What does giving him a chance mean, concretely? Voting for him? Not speaking ill of him? Is one denying him his chance by saying he's full of shit?


Like I have already said, the enemy of your enemy is your friend. As of right now, you have a guy who is running based on grassroots movements against the bourgeoisie -- he is running on giving movements a platform, as opposed to killing, imprisoning, squashing and marginalizing them, etc., which is a decent thing to gamble for (if you are wrong, you are wrong, and if you are right, you won your first battle in God knows how long). Basically all of the policy that was specifically put in place to undermine (and make impossible) left movements, he is opposed to, including and additionally (which has been mentioned) policy to help the most vulnerable. And all of this is placed on the back of whatever movements can push these issues.

Except he's not actually running against the bourgeoisie. He's running against the "casino" bourgeoisie. The same group Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin have gone after in the past (i.e. "crony capitalists").


Also, Hillary versus Bernie is probably the biggest gap (by far) in policy and ideology that there has been between candidates in a competitive race, even including general Dems and Repubs (which are usually the same). She not only supports all of the disastrous domestic policy, she is about as bad as Bush/Cheney or Kissinger or similar on foreign policy, and has made it implicitly clear, in opposing Sanders and criticizing his supporters, that she is totally against the grassroots movements. And if you already assume that there will be no difference based on who is in the office, there is basically no way of looking at it and not supporting Sanders, unless you are one of those people that assume that if a far-right person is in office so much devastation, murder and war will break out (which has been the case) a revolutionary consciousness will magically pop in liberal brains out of the mist, that would be far beyond what could be built up during a Sanders presidency. Or is some other strategy of which I'm unaware?

I'm not one of those believers in "things have to get worse to push people to revolution", but I also don't expect revolutionary consciousness to follow from Sanders leadership, because Sanders explicitly opposes socialist revolution and is leading a movement to mitigate the harmful effects of capitalism and make real this "American Dream" where "everybody gets a fair shot". Socialists seek reforms under capitalism with the goal of showing that they are inadequate while Sanders' goal is to show that, with a little effort, American capitalism can be made to work for everybody, and that is the key difference between a social revolutionist and a Bernie Sanders political revolutionist. Basically, instead of worrying about being perceived as marginal or sitting on the sidelines and consequently jumping on the Sanders bandwagon, which means stressing the similarity between Sanders' supposed socialism and ours and consenting to his position of leadership over the "revolutionary" movement, socialists should be highlighting the differences between Sanders' American Dream inspired, private enterprise-based "socialism" and genuine internationalist, abolitionist socialism. By all means, that would be great if revolutionary consciousness gets built up under a President Sanders, but it is already betrayal of revolutionary consciousness to tell people that Sanders offers a real solution to the crises or that he is even revolutionary at all.


But just in terms of caring about other people. Hillary Clinton is stealing/being given this election. And this is a person who played a fundamental role in undermining Barack Obama's foreign policy, by driving it to the right (neocon land) even more than it would have been. And Obama, to his credit, after Libya, learned his lesson, and actually saved us from some complete disasters by finally figuring things out and simply going against some things, by not falling for the "red line", false-flag, chemical weapon attack in Syria, by not providing even more weapons to terrorist organizations, by not supporting a no-fly-zone, troops, etc., all of which would have could have been even more disastrous.

Meanwhile, Obama increasing US troop levels in Syria by 500%, asks European allies to match contribution (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/obama-syria-troops-160425061530370.html)

[Homo Songun]

His "personal opinions" are the platform/policy program he's running on. How is that not relevant? It's not as if I'm talking about his favorite color or what he thinks about "Lemonade". If that's not relevant then the appeal you're left with is just some vague mentions here and there of "fighting the billionaires" and use of the label "democratic socialism".
Yes, precisely the point! I think it is a fascinating development! Much more fascinating than rehashing the traditional lines within the far-left on elections anyways.

[GLF]

Bernie Sanders is for all intents and purposes a corporatist. He believes in government regulation of corporations and government arbitration of labor and capital. Like all social democrats, he is basically Mussolini without the racism or nationalism. I myself wanted to believe in Sanders but I can't pretend any longer. Sorry. He's useless to us. American commies supporting Sanders reminds me of white nationalists supporting Trump. Sometimes you are so hungry for representation where in the past there was none at all, that just a little bit of crumbs thrown your way will make you lose your head and support someone who is in all reality nowhere near as hardcore as yourself, and you know this.

[Verneinung]

He's already declared, I think more than once, that he will support Clinton if/when she's nominated and that he's a lifelong Democrat. (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/277086-sanders-will-be-democrat-for-life-campaign-says) What does giving him a chance mean, concretely? Voting for him? Not speaking ill of him? Is one denying him his chance by saying he's full of shit?


If he didn't hint at supporting Hillary over Trump (which he usually phrases it as, "..will work hard to ensure Trump doesn't win" or something similar), he would have been automatically disqualified from running a long time ago -- they would have sunk his campaign from day one. And Jeff Weaver made the comments about being a "lifelong Dem". He has to play that ambiguous game. He also hinted at fighting at the convention for the platform, saying he doesn't control the movement (i.e., his supporters are in control), basically implying he isn't going to just get bullied and concede to the party, but you would have to wait until the end to see. But, if you are not even in the movement, not only do you have no chance, you have no say or persuasion in pushing him, protesting him, petitioning him, advising him, etc., let alone riding the momentum and movement to some sort of win.

Giving him a chance would mean supporting him over candidates who either have zero chance with exposure, or candidates like Hillary Clinton who isn't like another Obama, she is Kissinger/Cheney type dirty. Given that with election rigging, Bernie had almost zero chance of winning, without winning a vastly overwhelming majority; but, at the very least, aiding him in having a fighting chance would be nice, getting left leaning ideas out, trying to put a dent in the Democratic party, etc., would be nice.

At least to the point where he turns completely over, use him, as much as the system uses you not wanting to be involved.


Except he's not actually running against the bourgeoisie. He's running against the "casino" bourgeoisie. The same group Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin have gone after in the past (i.e. "crony capitalists").


That is a joke. His message is completely different. He is mentioning the working class and poor, he mentions a rigged economy, he isn't totally against the government like those that talk about "crony" on the right, he is talking about "billionaire class", he is talking about corporate media, not "liberal", etc. The policy is key though, the things like expensive college, debt, no healthcare, mass incarceration, campaign finance, NDAA, Patriot act, militarism, tax evasion, protecting elites from prosecution, not breaking up banks, etc. He is talking against corporations. He has people calling him dangerous. There are media blackouts and marginalizing of his campaign with lies, propaganda, etc., all to keep him from winning. How do they realize that he is dangerous to them, and you don't?


I'm not one of those believers in "things have to get worse to push people to revolution", but I also don't expect revolutionary consciousness to follow from Sanders leadership, because Sanders explicitly opposes socialist revolution and is leading a movement to mitigate the harmful effects of capitalism and make real this "American Dream" where "everybody gets a fair shot". Socialists seek reforms under capitalism with the goal of showing that they are inadequate while Sanders' goal is to show that, with a little effort, American capitalism can be made to work for everybody, and that is the key difference between a social revolutionist and a Bernie Sanders political revolutionist. Basically, instead of worrying about being perceived as marginal or sitting on the sidelines and consequently jumping on the Sanders bandwagon, which means stressing the similarity between Sanders' supposed socialism and ours and consenting to his position of leadership over the "revolutionary" movement, socialists should be highlighting the differences between Sanders' American Dream inspired, private enterprise-based "socialism" and genuine internationalist, abolitionist socialism. By all means, that would be great if revolutionary consciousness gets built up under a President Sanders, but it is already betrayal of revolutionary consciousness to tell people that Sanders offers a real solution to the crises or that he is even revolutionary at all.

Those are two separate issues that have to be addressed separately. And no one is implying that he is a "solution".

When you are looking at a giant leap forward -- a huge win for socialism, potentially (which is so far losing trillions to zero) -- how are you confusing this battle with the war? You can be extremely critical of Sanders ideas -- he is definitely not the most educated on the issues, from what he has shown -- but you can reject his goals without rejecting some reasonable things to fight for within his campaign. Actually do both at the same time like you can walk and not just chew your gum.

I should mention, that at this point, it is pretty much over. But, at one time, you could have worked this, as well as what you usually work. The bourgeoisie has their bets hedged at every angle, yet the left wants to make it a conversation about having any options at all. And like I said, if you have an alternative strategy, provide it.


Meanwhile, Obama increasing US troop levels in Syria by 500%, asks European allies to match contribution (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/obama-syria-troops-160425061530370.html)

I was talking about Hillary, not defending Obama, first of all. But what is your point?

The article says: "US President Barack Obama has said he plans to send 250 more troops to Syria, a sharp increase in the number of Americans working with local Syrian forces. 'I've decided to increase US support for local forces fighting ISIL in Syria'"

If he is fight ISIL, what is the problem? Do you support ISIL?

Hillary was involved in supporting what created the conditions for the problem (supporting Iraq war, foreign governments), created the problem directly (probably involved in a lot of the original pushes for overthrow of Assad with terrorist organizations), she tried to push the problem more over the edge (with no-fly-zone, continued support for terrorists organizations, backward states, etc.), and so on. Obama is either a naive punk or a heck of a lot less dangerous of a shill, and somehow this is a relevant fault?

[A Psychological Symphony]

The article says: "US President Barack Obama has said he plans to send 250 more troops to Syria, a sharp increase in the number of Americans working with local Syrian forces. 'I've decided to increase US support for local forces fighting ISIL in Syria'"

If he is fight ISIL, what is the problem? Do you support ISIL?

I was feeling you on the majority of your post, but then you had to go and spoil it so awfully... Are you really saying you don't see a problem with US ground troops (or intervention at all for that matter) in syria? Are you really backing imperialist intervention because it's in the name of getting the bad guys? And did you REALLY try to end your imperialist apologism by asking if they were an ISIS supporter for not supporting said imperialism?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

If he didn't hint at supporting Hillary over Trump (which he usually phrases it as, "..will work hard to ensure Trump doesn't win" or something similar), he would have been automatically disqualified from running a long time ago -- they would have sunk his campaign from day one. And Jeff Weaver made the comments about being a "lifelong Dem". He has to play that ambiguous game.

So when his campaign finally does sink on day three hundred and whatever, why should he be obliged to support Hillary Clinton? At that point he doesn't have anything to lose by refusing to endorse her, right? ... except the droves of youth and workers he can keep herded into the neoliberal, ultra-imperialist Democratic Party, the graveyard of social movements.

Jeff Weaver is his official campaign manager; he was speaking on behalf of the campaign. They are way more explicit than "ensure Trump doesn't win". Check Jane Sanders, last month: "if [Hillary] wins [the nomination] we hope our supporters will support her." (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/13/jane-sanders-we-would-vote-hillary-but-the-superdelegate-system-sucks.html) Check Bernie Sanders, last month: "...if Secretary Clinton is the nominee, I will certainly support her.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton_us_5706fbbde4b03a9e75d3fd93) Nothing ambiguous there.


He also hinted at fighting at the convention for the platform, saying he doesn't control the movement (i.e., his supporters are in control), basically implying he isn't going to just get bullied and concede to the party, but you would have to wait until the end to see. But, if you are not even in the movement, not only do you have no chance, you have no say or persuasion in pushing him, protesting him, petitioning him, advising him, etc., let alone riding the momentum and movement to some sort of win.

Why do you have to be a part of his movement to save capitalism to protest or persuade him? If anything, his softliner anti-Democratic Party supporters just look silly petitioning him to run as an independent or Green when he has already declared he's a Democrat and wants his supporters to vote for Hillary. I mean I get that that kind of a petition is just a device to engage with his supporters who've gotten excited by his populist rhetoric, but it seems to me it's just sowing the illusions deeper in a totally self-defeating way.

I do agree with those who have said something to the effect that the ethos of the "grassroots" Bernie campaign enthusiasts is to a certain extent independent of Sanders, but the longer those people remain entranced under Bernie's fundamentally bogus vision of socialism, the more that "save capitalism for the many" meme being engineered by the most prominent ideologue behind Sanders (i.e. Robert Reich, described by Vox as "Sanders's most persuasive — and, through his Facebook videos, viral — surrogate" (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/5/11581940/robert-reich-ezra-klein)) diffuses into that category of people. And so long as the "movement" for "political revolution" remains tied to Sanders' presidential campaign, it is virtually guaranteed to wither in the graveyard it is being channeled into.


Giving him a chance would mean supporting him over candidates who either have zero chance with exposure, or candidates like Hillary Clinton who isn't like another Obama, she is Kissinger/Cheney type dirty. Given that with election rigging, Bernie had almost zero chance of winning, without winning a vastly overwhelming majority; but, at the very least, aiding him in having a fighting chance would be nice, getting left leaning ideas out, trying to put a dent in the Democratic party, etc., would be nice.

At least to the point where he turns completely over, use him, as much as the system uses you not wanting to be involved.

Again, I don't see why one has to support him or join his movement to use him. Use him as an example of what a socialist doesn't look like. Find a way to engage with his supporters who are newly interested in socialism that doesn't make his policies out to be some radical departure from the status quo, because they really aren't.


That is a joke. His message is completely different. He is mentioning the working class and poor, he mentions a rigged economy, he isn't totally against the government like those that talk about "crony" on the right, he is talking about "billionaire class", he is talking about corporate media, not "liberal", etc. The policy is key though, the things like expensive college, debt, no healthcare, mass incarceration, campaign finance, NDAA, Patriot act, militarism, tax evasion, protecting elites from prosecution, not breaking up banks, etc. He is talking against corporations. He has people calling him dangerous. There are media blackouts and marginalizing of his campaign with lies, propaganda, etc., all to keep him from winning. How do they realize that he is dangerous to them, and you don't?

What is fundamentally different about his message though? His vision of "democratic socialism" is "private companies thriving and investing in America" (https://berniesanders.com/democratic-socialism-in-the-united-states/), the government "not owning the means of production", and perpetuation of class hierarchy. Has he once during his campaign condemned capitalism tout court? He can't speak against capitalism without qualifying it with words like "casino" (e.g., this (http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/14/in_defense_of_democratic_socialism_bernie) - ignore DemocracyNow's misrepresentation and look at what he actually said). And what about the millionaire class? Is a Fortune 500 CEO who makes *just* $10,000,000 a year middle class? Capitalism is inherently a "rigged economy". I mean that is intrinsically what is happening when you work a job and create wealth which you do not receive. He is taking the same position that a minority of members within the ruling class are themselves beginning to take. For example, earlier this year a former Goldman Sachs executive voiced support for breaking up big banks. They, like Bernie Sanders, see "casino" capitalism run amok as the danger and they, like Sanders, do not see smashing the capitalist system as the solution.


Those are two separate issues that have to be addressed separately. And no one is implying that he is a "solution".

When you are looking at a giant leap forward -- a huge win for socialism, potentially (which is so far losing trillions to zero) -- how are you confusing this battle with the war? You can be extremely critical of Sanders ideas -- he is definitely not the most educated on the issues, from what he has shown -- but you can reject his goals without rejecting some reasonable things to fight for within his campaign. Actually do both at the same time like you can walk and not just chew your gum.

I should mention, that at this point, it is pretty much over. But, at one time, you could have worked this, as well as what you usually work. The bourgeoisie has their bets hedged at every angle, yet the left wants to make it a conversation about having any options at all. And like I said, if you have an alternative strategy, provide it.

You are implying he is a stepping stone to a solution then. What I don't understand is why do you feel the need to fight within his campaign to be effective? Rejecting Sanders does not mean rejecting minimum wage increase, affordable higher education, legalizing weed, or reducing inequality or the number of people in prison or any of the other lefty positions deemed "safe" to advocate by Sanders. Supporting Sanders does, however, mean supporting someone who openly and proudly boasts of plans to continue deportations and drone warfare. In other words, gratuitous mass violence. How can anyone with a conscience do that [support someone like that]?


I was talking about Hillary, not defending Obama, first of all. But what is your point?

I was offering a fact that seems to contradict your claim that "Obama, to his credit, after Libya, learned his lesson, and actually saved us from some complete disasters by finally figuring things out and simply going against some things, by not falling for the "red line", false-flag, chemical weapon attack in Syria, by not providing even more weapons to terrorist organizations, by not supporting a no-fly-zone, troops, etc., all of which would have could have been even more disastrous."


The article says: "US President Barack Obama has said he plans to send 250 more troops to Syria, a sharp increase in the number of Americans working with local Syrian forces. 'I've decided to increase US support for local forces fighting ISIL in Syria'"

If he is fight ISIL, what is the problem? Do you support ISIL?

Hillary was involved in supporting what created the conditions for the problem (supporting Iraq war, foreign governments), created the problem directly (probably involved in a lot of the original pushes for overthrow of Assad with terrorist organizations), she tried to push the problem more over the edge (with no-fly-zone, continued support for terrorists organizations, backward states, etc.), and so on. Obama is either a naive punk or a heck of a lot less dangerous of a shill, and somehow this is a relevant fault?

And you expect another US invasion of Iraq, plus Syria this time, to make it all better? And wow... you're really pulling a play from the book of George W. Bush there with that "you're either with us or with the terrorists" bunk.