Socialist Alternative Supports Bernie Sanders

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As far as I can tell, this article doesn't actually endorse a Sanders run for president. What it is saying is that if Sanders runs as an independent, it might make left wing politics more viable and widely discussed in the U.S., which would be a good thing.

Which is pretty much how American opportunists justify their support for bourgeois and reformist figures. The thing is, building class consciousness takes more than achieving this sort of marketing "victory", and consciousness is drastically undermined by groups that sow illusions in the ability of bourgeois figures to create a nicer, cleaner, eco-friendlier, more sensitive and enlightened capitalism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

That period is over. YABM and Brandon are suffering from reformist illusions.

There's a qualitative difference between what is within our material interests as members of the working class, and what merits political support as a means of advancing revolutionary communism. No one is saying that SAlt deserves political support, however considering the poor state of the social services, infrastructure and health care in the US it's mere posturing to say that I would like not to have these things for shear revolutionary credentials. Because yea, free healthcare is nice and I want it, but it isn't communism

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Social democracy is not an economic system or an arrangement of forces between classes. It is a policy of representatives of the working class who seek to administer the bourgeois state, i.e. seek to defend bourgeois property, whatever that entails.

For a brief period, in order to stave off the threat of Bolshevism, that entailed some improvements in living conditions for the masses.

That period is over. YABM and Brandon are suffering from reformist illusions.

I might grant you that the period of social democracy improving the standards of workers, but what reason do we have to believe that small Trot sects who have been trying to jumpstart the 4th international for however many decades (by writing polemics against one another and against the stalinists) are about to have their period? I can sympathize with the CWI's desire to find a strategy out of irrelevance and political purgatory though I do disagree with the tactic of jumping behind Bernie Sanders.

[Alexios]

look at this thread

[Red Sun]

The thing is, building class consciousness takes more than achieving this sort of marketing "victory", and consciousness is drastically undermined by groups that sow illusions in the ability of bourgeois figures to create a nicer, cleaner, eco-friendlier, more sensitive and enlightened capitalism.

I agree, but I think that one can critically support reforms that will make the lives of workers better while at the same time pointing out that these reforms will not ultimately solve the problems workers face. At most, Bernie Sanders would be a springboard for arguing why people like Bernie Sanders are not enough.

[VivalaCuarta]

Electing a bourgeois politician is not a reform.

We have enough "people like Bernie Sanders." We have enough bourgeois politicians. We have too many of them, and too many fake socialists who support them. Enough already.

Ralph Nader, Ukrainian NATO/Nazis, British anti-immigrant chauvinists, Irish Ulster Orange terrorists, Boris Yeltsin: the problem is not that they are "not enough" ... of anything. They are enemies of the working class. CWI tries to drum up working class support for them. Enough of that!

[Loony Le Fist]

Elections and reforms will not change anything because the ruling elite no longer fear the people. Trotsky was right about permanent revolution. We must withdraw support for the corporate state (easier said than done) and form our own support systems. There must be sit-down strikes. Only through non-violent insurrection can we ever defeat the collusion of the elite and the state to finally bring revolution. The corporate state's weakness is in its need for compliance from working people. If they withdraw their support, the state ceases to have power (of course, easier said than done).

While I don't reject the idea of voting in politicians like Sanders who can provide relief to the working class, we should be under no illusions they have any obligation to the people. Actual revolution, or at least the credible threat, are the only means through which we can exert pressure on elites to enact lasting reforms. Nonetheless, we must always be looking forward towards a true workers state. The transformation cannot simply stop when reforms are passed. The pressure must never let up. Permanent Revolution.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Elections and reforms will not change anything because the ruling elite no longer fear the people. Trotsky was right about permanent revolution. We must withdraw support for the corporate state (easier said than done) and form our own support systems. There must be sit-down strikes. Only through non-violent insurrection can we ever defeat the collusion of the elite and the state to finally bring revolution. The corporate state's weakness is in its need for compliance from working people. If they withdraw their support, the state ceases to have power (of course, easier said than done).

While I don't reject the idea of voting in politicians like Sanders who can provide relief to the working class, we should be under no illusions they have any obligation to the people. Actual revolution, or at least the credible threat, are the only means through which we can exert pressure on elites to enact lasting reforms. Nonetheless, we must always be looking forward towards a true workers state. The transformation cannot simply stop when reforms are passed. The pressure must never let up. Permanent Revolution.

Trotsky used the term "permanent revolution" to denote the thesis that in regions of delayed capitalist development, the local bourgeoisie is too weak and dependent on imperialism to carry out a democratic revolution, and that the petite bourgeoisie lacks the economic independence to form a true class party that would be able to act as an independent political force - therefore, the tasks of the democratic revolution can only be carried out by the proletariat. This is a rejection of the stagist conception that neo-colonies and similar regions need a democratic revolution and after that a socialist one.

And he certainly never advocated peaceful revolution - in fact he dedicated a few major works to the question of revolutionary violence.

Finally, what is the corporate state, what is the elite? These are not class terms. Socialists don't just fight Northrop-Grumman, they fight Ma and Pa stores and all kinds of capital as well.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Only through non-violent insurrection can we ever defeat the collusion of the elite and the state to finally bring revolution. The corporate state's weakness is in its need for compliance from working people. If they withdraw their support, the state ceases to have power (of course, easier said than done).

Seems ridiculous to try to take on the state with its military complex through non-violent means. How are you going to control it anyway? Peace police delegates at every peaceful sit down?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Seems ridiculous to try to take on the state with its military complex through non-violent means. How are you going to control it anyway? Peace police delegates at every peaceful sit down?

Chris Hedges, cloned a quintillion times and equipped with state-of-the-art black bloc detection kit.

[KurtFF8]

It happened in Los Angeles at the Peace and Freedom central committee meeting. Because of her age she had to quit in Cali. Her and Becker (who was on the committee) voted to back Roseanne over professed Socialist's that were also running, Stephen Durham, nominee of the Freedom Socialist Party and 
Stewart Alexander, nominee of the Socialist Party USA . Further they vowed to give full support in the state for her. I abstained then quit.

p.s. I doubt that the LaRiva/Becker Party really wants to put that shit on their website.

So what you are actually referring to is (essentially internal) political drama within the Peace and Freedom Party primary rather than the PSL actually endorsing Barr for president. Because the PSL continued its presidential campaign after the events you're referring to even in California.

[Loony Le Fist]

Trotsky used the term "permanent revolution" to denote the thesis that in regions of delayed capitalist development, the local bourgeoisie is too weak and dependent on imperialism to carry out a democratic revolution, and that the petite bourgeoisie lacks the economic independence to form a true class party that would be able to act as an independent political force - therefore, the tasks of the democratic revolution can only be carried out by the proletariat. This is a rejection of the stagist conception that neo-colonies and similar regions need a democratic revolution and after that a socialist one.

Thank you for the background. I probably meant it more how Marx meant it. Though I always tend to associate the term, permanent revolution, more with Trotsky for some reason.

Wikipedia
Marx used it to describe the strategy of a revolutionary class to continue to pursue its class interests independently and without compromise, despite overtures for political alliances, and despite the political dominance of opposing sections of society.

And he certainly never advocated peaceful revolution - in fact he dedicated a few major works to the question of revolutionary violence.

Right. I don't advocate a violent revolution. There are more efficient and less bloody ways of achieving our goals. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to self-defense, however.

Finally, what is the corporate state, what is the elite? These are not class terms. Socialists don't just fight Northrop-Grumman, they fight Ma and Pa stores and all kinds of capital as well.

Northrop-Grumman has a lot more capital than Ma and Pa. They are more a threat to me. I would argue it's a lot easier to convince Ma and Pa to fight for the cause of worker ownership. Trying to get Northrop-Grumman involved in revolutionary activity probably wouldn't go so well.

So when I say corporate state, I mean the current oligarchy government in the US. When I say elites, I mean those with money and power who influence the politics.

Does that clear things up?

[synthesis]

Northrop-Grumman has a lot more capital than Ma and Pa. They are more a threat to me. I would argue it's a lot easier to convince Ma and Pa to fight for the cause of worker ownership. Trying to get Northrop-Grumman involved in revolutionary activity probably wouldn't go so well.

It's a lot harder to organize Ma and Pa's wage laborers, though, and Ma and Pa know that. The petit-bourgeois can come along as individuals, of course, but as a class their role is wholly reactionary, perhaps even more so than the haute bourgeoisie.

More generally, I think you're buying too much into conciliatory social-democratic rhetoric, that the problem is these capitalists and these politicians rather than the entire institution of class society.

[sixdollarchampagne]

When Bernie first ran for the US Senate, he had the endorsement of multiple powerful Democratic Party politicians, as Wikipedia relates:

"Sanders entered the race on April 21, 2005. New York Senator Chuck Schumer, the Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, endorsed Sanders … Sanders was also endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, and Democratic National Committee Chairman and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. Dean said in May 2005 that he considered Sanders an ally who 'votes with the Democrats 98% of the time'… Then-Senator Barack Obama also campaigned for Sanders in Vermont. Sanders entered into an agreement with the Democratic Party, much as he had as a congressman, to be listed in their primary but to decline the nomination should he win, which he did."

That's how close the "Independent" politician Sanders is to the Dems; he's the kind of "Independent" that US Senate Democrats can live with.

If Sanders runs for President, it will be a dream come true for the US Communist Party, since he is an ally of the Democrats in the Upper Chamber of the US Congress, while claiming to be "independent," just like the CPUSA.

It would be fascinating to know if the (non) "Independent" Sanders ever voted against the US Department of Defense appropriations bill in the Senate or the House. I would bet a month's income that he never has, so Bernie is certainly not "independent" of imperialism and militarism, but one of their supporters. In cheerleading for Bernie, "Socialist Alternative" should really be embarrassed at their own opportunism.

That "Socialist Alternative" is acting as a shill for Bernie is an utterly undeniable sign of their degeneration, as is the astonishing formula that they use, "progressive and left activists inside and outside the Democratic Party" – in other words, the "left" includes (at least) a sliver of the pro-war, utterly bourgeois, imperialist Democratic Party heavyweights. Freaking astonishing!

[Prof. Oblivion]

Why does it matter what ~20-30 people support or don't support?

[Sea]

I remember reading her wiki article when this was still news (ahem) and it said something to the effect of:

Kshama Sawant is a [...] Trotskyist

I just nodded my head a little like, yeah, at least wikipedia get some things correct.

[Prometeo liberado]

So what you are actually referring to is (essentially internal) political drama within the Peace and Freedom Party primary rather than the PSL actually endorsing Barr for president. Because the PSL continued its presidential campaign after the events you're referring to even in California.

What you're doing is trying to show just one side of the coin here. Fact is is that Becker, as a member of the Central Committee, pledged his "full support" within Cali. He went on to say as the PSL would probably not push for it's members to "write-in" Peta's name that the PSL would offer to support Roseanne. The extent of support only turned out to be getting people to register. This is classic Becker/Lariva/PSL, always hedging their bets. As a/the leader of the PSL why would he not abstain? Answer, because everyone at that meeting thought that Barr was going to pump MUCH money into the race and everyone was abandoning any sense of ideology and principles to be part of it. When it became very apparent that campaigning was something very real and expensive she all but gave up. Even poor old Stewart Anderson resigned in disgust.

[VivalaCuarta]

On the PSL imbroglio in the PFP: blocking with Roseanne Barr to deny the FSP or SP candidates the PFP nomination wasn't worse than any other possible maneuver in that middle class populist party. Roseanne was just as much a socialist and a revolutionary as the other contenders from the PSL, FSP and SP were. That is to say, not a socialist at all.

[Prometeo liberado]

On the PSL imbroglio in the PFP: blocking with Roseanne Barr to deny the FSP or SP candidates the PFP nomination wasn't worse than any other possible maneuver in that middle class populist party. Roseanne was just as much a socialist and a revolutionary as the other contenders from the PSL, FSP and SP were. That is to say, not a socialist at all.

If the entire membership of the PSL were in that room to see and hear what was said by Peta and done by Becker that party would cease to exist.

[FSL]

As far as I can tell, this article doesn't actually endorse a Sanders run for president. What it is saying is that if Sanders runs as an independent, it might make left wing politics more viable and widely discussed in the U.S., which would be a good thing. The article also does mention a number of the problems with Sanders, so I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that he's some kind of socialist messiah.

"so I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that he's some kind of socialist messiah"
"it might make left wing politics more viable and widely discussed in the U.S., which would be a good thing"

If people wanted to support him because they thought he was a socialist messiah they'd be wrong but at least their heart would be in the right place.
Anyone who wants to support him because "left-wing politics might become more viable this way" is just as wrong and his heart is wherever his reasoning skills are.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. I would love it if social democracy became an actual phenomenon in the States, if only so the American populace would no longer run in terror when they hear the word 'socialism'.

Social democracy is an actual phenomenon in France and people seem to want to hear more about Lepen as a result. Social democracy is and has been a phenomenon in a myriad of places so there is no reason to assume what might happen. Just read up.