We need to talk about Bernie
- This topic has 106 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What he is proposing is known as bourgeois socialism. That is a very old political current that existed during the times of Marx and Engels.He is just advocating for a new New-Deal like FDR. Nothing new, and he is just another warmongers like all the others senators members of the Club of the Millionaires known as the US CongressFor the majority of the US workers anything is socialism or communism.It looks like the word Socialism is not a dirty expression among the youth,
So, Sanders has taken Michigan (in a surprise given the polling). Also, apparently on an increased (for a primary) turnout. Whatever we think of his actual policies, I think it is heartening that there is an expression of something other than free market individualism, and that his movement is going to have to be taken seriously. In office, I suspect he would be indistinguishable from Obama.Its interesting to see the racialised divisions in the US, as (I assume pro-Clinton) supporters keep on going on about his lack of connexion with African American voters, and how they don't respond to his 'class' narrative. In some senses, Michigan refutes that.As a side note, as a Jewish presidential candidate, he carried a largely Muslim district in Michigan, which does seem to tell against the myths of eternal racial antagonisms, and suggests that where they persist it is to the benefit of some.
On internet surfs i have come across his name a few times – Henry Wallace, Roosevelt's vice-president, who was dumped by the Democrats for being too "radical" and later accused of being a "communist" when running as a progressive independent , arguing for free universal healthcare, labour reform, and the end of segregation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._WallaceThis is a fairly sympathetic review of Wallacehttp://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14297-henry-wallace-americas-forgotten-visionaryReminds me of Sanders…how many in 50 years will remember his failed attempt at the presidency or any of his policies.
alanjjohnstone wrote:On internet surfs i have come across his name a few times – Henry Wallace, Roosevelt's vice-president, who was dumped by the Democrats for being too "radical" and later accused of being a "communist" when running as a progressive independent , arguing for free universal healthcare, labour reform, and the end of segregation.According to yesterday's London edition of Metro:
Quote:Mr Trump blamed Democrat Bernie Sanders' supporters for trouble at his rallies, calling him "Bernie our communist friend".ALB wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:On internet surfs i have come across his name a few times – Henry Wallace, Roosevelt's vice-president, who was dumped by the Democrats for being too "radical" and later accused of being a "communist" when running as a progressive independent , arguing for free universal healthcare, labour reform, and the end of segregation.According to yesterday's London edition of Metro:
Quote:Mr Trump blamed Democrat Bernie Sanders' supporters for trouble at his rallies, calling him "Bernie our communist friend".In the USA a tenant who is complaining about a rent increase is called a communist, therefore, Bernie Sanders who is just a social democrat and a supporter of bourgeois nationalism can be called anything.Noam Chomsky has said that he is just a New Dealer, and he is correct in that aspect. in reality It shows how distorted the concept of socialism or communism is within the American society. My grandfather who did not have any formal education, he knew that the Soviet Union and its allied were not communists, and he knew that WWIi was a fight among thieves and land robbers, and that there was not any difference between Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt. He did not need a PHD from any university to know that
Sanders has repeatedly stated he will endorse the nominee of the Democratic Party ie Hilarity Clinton.The Green Party holds out a welcome to him to run with them as a Third Party? I very much doubt he will accept the hand of friendship from one that shares most of his values and that he will rather support the Wall St candidate to maintain his senatorship. Principles can be bought and Bernie is happy to sell his. https://www.rt.com/usa/336047-jill-stein-bernie-sanders/
alanjjohnstone wrote:Principles can be bought and Bernie is happy to sell his.That's a bit harsh, isn't it? It's not our case that all politicians are unprincipled self-seekers. On the contrary, it's our case that even if they're not they still can't make capitalism work for the benefit of the majority
He masquerades as an Independent but is materially supported by the Democratic Party machine in Vermont. His voting record is consistently in support of the Democratic Party. He has used his funds to finance Democrats election campaigns. He seeks to run with the fox and chase with the hounds. I call it hypocrisy to pretend that you are something you are not…and that is an independent senator. I call it hypocrisy to accuse your rival of being in the pay of Wall St and then to support her when she becomes the nominee.The party that represents his policies is the Green Party and Jill Stein yet he spurns it for the sake that his opportunity to stand for president is better within the Democrat Party rather than a third party candidate such as Ralph Nader experienced. Whether you agree or not, it will be Stein who will receive Chomsky's vote while in the swing states he recommends a vote for the Democrat Party as the lesser evil. If Sanders had any principles he would perhaps suggest similar yet he won't.But i am minded of the John Quincy Adam quote "Always vote for principle though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweet reflection your vote is never lost"Am i being ungenerous in my opinion of Sanders and questioning the sincerity his motives…I will stand corrected if the "Bern Movement" survives his defeat fo the nomination and become independently active in support for his principles…by supporting the candidate who continues to promote them…Jill Stein of the Green Party…otherwise it can be condemned as just another section of cheerleaders for Hilarity Clinton and he putting his own career ahead of the principles he says he holds.
Bernie Sanders had already sold his principles before entering into the circus of the capitalist electoral process.Pseudo-socialists have existed for many years in the USAhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1913/no-101-january-1913/pseudo-socialist-vote-usBernie Sanders' campaign is not a movement, and it is not a revolution either. It is just a dead end to attract the youth and the young workers to the rank of the Democratic Party,
Another pseudo-socialist and pseudo-Marxist is Richard Wolff.His economical conception of workers management was taken into practice in Argentina when workers started to run several factories, but they were administrated under capitalist law in order to produce profits.When they start to produce profits the government passed law to take them back
One of the problems with accusing people of betraying principles is: whose principles? If the person never was a socialist, e.g. Sanders, then he can't be accused of betraying them because he never held them in the first place. If it's that person's principle, which differs from ours, he may or may not be betraying them. If, as seems to be Sanders's case, his principle is that a Democratic President is better than a Republican one then in saying that he'll support Clinton if she wins the nomination rather than him he can't be accused of betraying his principles. Also, of course, if someone has no principles they can't be accused of betrayal, only of having no principles, but I don't think that applies to Sanders.
ALB wrote:One of the problems with accusing people of betraying principles is: whose principles? If the person never was a socialist, e.g. Sanders, then he can't be accused of betraying them because he never held them in the first place. If it's that person's principle, which differs from ours, he may or may not be betraying them. If, as seems to be Sanders's case, his principle is that a Democratic President is better than a Republican one then in saying that he'll support Clinton if she wins the nomination rather than him he can't be accused of betraying his principles. Also, of course, if someone has no principles they can't be accused of betrayal, only of having no principles, but I don't think that applies to Sanders.You are totally correct, he is not a renegade, he did not have any real socialist principles either What Johnstone indicated before is correct too, because he is not going to support the Green PartyHe will end supporting Hillary Clinton, even more, Barack Obama has asked to the members of the Democratic Party to support Clinton
We face much the same problem with Sanders as with Corbyn. They appear radical because they are in opposition and can declare what they wish. And the fact that they appear to be advocating different does resonate with many who are tired of the status quo. But even when he was elected offical opposition Corbyn began to, not water down his positions, but more add nuances to them until they are slightly emphasis.Sanders has been rightly crticised for his foreign policy positions.Our approach upsets folk personally because we challenge their self-image…that they are supporting radicals and are for real change.I recently sussed this out in an online exchange about co-ops. The person (with an anarchist avitar) seemed shocked that i was saying that co-ops could be very conservative and be used for supporting and reinforcing the status quo and history showed that they are more often than not co-opted and any progressive elements within them were nullified by competition within capitalism.Also as Mcolme said, when i accused Wolff of lacking political confidence in promoting socialism and for settling for a half-measure of co-operative version capitalism, ("market socialism"), she could not seem to fathom how that could be and began to say our basic definitions and understandings of socialism were at odds. We are accused of sectarianism, of domatism, when all we are doing is sifting the wheat from the chaff. Even if we try the softly-softly friendly approach, once the differences arise, we are faced with a problem that the people we argue with feel compromised and under-mined. No doubt because they also get attacked by the right and this criticism of urs feels like a stab in the back to them.I am just musing , not really saying anything is definite…but pondering what psychological interaction is the best to take with those who are critical of "capitalism" and we have to disillusion them of their misconceptions. i do think it might be painful for them. I wonder if there is a better way i can disagree with someone without them thinking i'm challenging their intelligence or gullibility for holding wrong opinions.
Here is a list of Sanders acts that makes him guilty of hypocrisyhttp://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/24/notes-from-an-ultra-radical-perfectionist/Bernie Sanders – who:*Calls Edward Snowden a criminal and Hugo Chavez (a social democrat) a “dead communist dictator.*Embraces Barack Obama’s arch-terrorist drone war.*Falsely claims to have been independent of the Democratic Party prior to the current presidential campaign.*Supports the reckless U.S. provocation of Russia in Eastern Europe.*Calls for the arch-reactionary and fundamentalist Islam-sponsoring state of Saudi Arabia to step up its already mass- murderous military role in the Middle East*Helped rationalize Israel’ criminal mass killings of Palestinian children in Gaza (over the opposition of properly nauseated peace activists in his home town of Burlington, Vermont).*Backed the Clinton administration’s criminal and unnecessary bombing of Serbia.*Has worked to undermine third party politics in Vermont.*Called police to arrest activists occupying his Burlington, Vermont Congressional office to protest “Bomber Bernie’s” Serbia policy.*Called police (when Sanders was Burlington’s mayor and at the leftmost stage of his political career) to arrest peace activists occupying an industrial plant owned by the leading, blood-soaked military contractor General Electric.*Pushed and voted for the mass-murderous and wasteful F-35 jet program (a classic Pentagon boondoggle) because it meant “jobs for Vermont.”*Calls the racist British imperialist Winston Churchill (who embraced the racist gassing of Arabs) his favorite non-American leader in world history (he could at least have said Nelson Mandela).*Backs the standardized testing mania that has wreaked such terrible havoc on schools and children.*Dilutes the radical tradition, mocking his purported hero Eugene Debs by (among other things) calling himself a socialist while embracing private, for-profit ownership of the means of production and distribution.*Voted for the racist-mass-incarcerationist 1994 federal crime bill – a reactionary $30 billion measure that “created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants and the expansion of police forces” (Michelle Alexander).*Fails to call for the giant rollback of the United States’ gargantuan “defense” (Empire) budget his progressive domestic social agenda requires.*Leaves the Pentagon system almost completely without criticism when asked how he would pay for good things like single-payer health insurance.*Says that we should learn from Denmark and other significantly social-democratic Scandinavian countries without bothering to note that those nations have tiny military budgets.*Has repeatedly referred to the cynical corporatist and arch-imperial war hawk Hillary Clinton as his “good friend.”*Dismisses Black calls for reparations as “as ‘divisive,’ as though centuries of slavery, segregation, discrimination, ghettoization, and stigmatization aren’t worthy of any specific acknowledgement or remedy” (Michelle Alexander).*Absurdly refers to the arch-corporatist and ridiculously complicated Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) as a good first step on the path to single payer (to Medicare for All).*Aligns himself with the National Rifle Association against the parents of children murdered by an assault weapon-wielding maniac in Sandy Hook, Connecticut.*Fails to advance a serious and substantive attack on the longstanding racism, corporate-neoliberalism, and imperialism of the Clintons, thereby calling into question the sincerity and resoluteness of his claim to represent a left-progressive challenge to the long rightward drift of the Democratic party.*Repeatedly and absurdly suggests that the U.S. wasn’t a corporate- and high finance-ruled plutocracy until the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.*Badly over-focuses on plutocratic campaign funding (a very real anti-democratic problem, of course) as the source of the nation’s ongoing subservience to big capital.*Fails to exploit Hillary Clinton’s very real e-mail and Benghazi scandals, leaving them to the Republican right and questioning thereby the seriousness of his declared goal of capturing the Democratic nomination.*Promises in advance to back the “eventual Democratic Party presidential nominee” (Hillary) without conditions, without demanding anything as the price of his Lesser Evilist loyalty.
When (not if) Sanders loses the nomination for president, many of his supporters are pledging to continue the "political revolution" he inspired.http://www.thepeoplessummit.org/https://thepeoplesrevolution.org/are just two initiatives that intend to take advantage of the Sanders legacy. Another unrelated group of a thousand Sanders supporters signed an open letter calling upon Sanders to use his resources to build a permanent organisation, not just what's left of his cash but his data-base on voters.http://inthesetimes.com/features/political-revolution-after-bernie-sanders.html
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.