UN The People Who Think Bernie Is Moderate - To socialist candidates, even the left-most Democrat isn’t left enough.

Forget beating Trump. The Democrats are lucky if their own party doesn't implode in 2020 due to infighting and the aspirations of otherwise fringe groups.


Senator Elizabeth Warren wants new taxes on wealth. Senator Bernie Sanders wants Medicare for All. Senator Cory Booker wants guaranteed jobs. Jeff Mackler wants the elimination of the military budget, the nationalization of the energy and banking industries, open borders, the creation of a state-run health-care system, and the end of capitalism in the United States.

A member of the Trotskyist party Socialist Action, Mackler is one of a handful of true, full-fat, no-joke socialist candidates running or considering running for president in 2020. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell looks at the Democratic primary and sees the proposed Cubafication of the country; Mackler looks at it and sees neoliberal accommodationism. “Bernie gets a little attention when he says things like, ‘Three people in the United States control half the wealth in the country,’” he told me with a chuckle. “He has no proposal to change that in any way!”

Between McConnell and Mackler, the latter probably has the better argument. Historians and political scientists—and socialists themselves—make the point that although the left has moved to the left, there is still a lot of left left to the left. Progressives have become more progressive, and Nordic-model policies more popular; membership in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has boomed. But socialism—real socialism, meaning worker collectives and the nationalization of critical industries and the end of the free-enterprise model? In the presidential race, nobody is even talking about it.

Save for Mackler and people like him. The Oakland-based candidate is gearing up for his 2020 campaign for the White House, with planned rallies and meetings from Kentucky to Maine. “We don’t expect to win. We’re going to be write-in candidates in maybe a dozen states,” he said. “But we will win if we build our party.”

In Florida, Elijah Manley, a college student, activist, and former staffer for Senator Mike Gravel’s 2020 bid, is also running a socialist protest campaign. A member of the Green Party and the Socialist Party of the United States of America (SPUSA), Manley told me that his goal is to talk about justice wherever and however he can. “A lot of that comes from my background—there are issues that as a black person from the South and a queer person, I don’t think are reflected in politics,” he said, also citing the need for more focus on generational justice and the rights and representation of young people.

Read: Will the left go too far?

His campaigning has involved delineating his policy preferences, building a social-media presence, and going on Fox News to represent the socialist perspective. “One of the commentators said that people buying avocado toast at Starbucks is why they are poor,” he said, adding that he got a more receptive response on the channel than he imagined.

These candidates differ from the Democrats on policy, putting forward far, far more sweeping proposals than even Sanders has. Mackler scoffed at Warren’s plan to tax fortunes over $50 million at 2 percent a year, recalling a time he suggested a 100 percent levy on income over $150,000 a year. Manley said he supports proposals like Medicare for All and free college tuition, but nevertheless wants to keep workers controlling the means of production as a north star. “I’m not the type of person to attack other people on the left,” he said. “But those policies aren’t socialism.”

Monica Moorehead, the once and perhaps future presidential candidate for the Workers World Party, supports reparations, guaranteeing all Americans a decent standard of living, and ending the carceral state. “We see this as class struggle,” she told me. “Are you on the side of the bosses and the bankers who exploit workers around the world? Or are you on the side of working people, including people of color?” Within that class struggle, the socialists’ goal is not to hem in capitalism’s excesses, as Democrats largely want to do, but to end the hegemony of capitalism.

Of course, for many Republicans and conservative commentators, everyone from Manley to Joe Biden represents a socialist threat. “We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE!,” the president tweeted in July. McConnell has used the term to bash Democrats’ voting-rights legislation, the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and expanding statehood to Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, repeatedly expressing shock that the Democrats want to destroy free enterprise.

This is an old rhetorical move, not a serious piece of contemporary political analysis. As the Cornell historian Lawrence Glickman, the author of a new book on free enterprise, has pointed out, Republicans have termed whatever the Democrats have wanted as “socialism” and whomever they choose to run as a “socialist” regularly since the New Deal. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis: all socialists.

“The key is the binary framing, freedom or free enterprise on one side, and any modification of that is deemed socialism on the other,” Glickman told me. “If you mess with with free enterprise, you will ultimately get through the slippery-slope process to what they posit as socialism. And socialism is more often a code word for New Deal liberalism and its descendants than actual socialism.”

Indeed, the country’s binary politics elide much of the nuance that exists on the left in other countries. Democrats have moved toward what is elsewhere often called “social democracy,” meaning a mixed economy with a robust welfare state. “It’s a term that’s common in Europe that’s never taken off here,” explains Michael Kazin, a historian at Georgetown and a longtime activist on the left. “That’s what Bernie Sanders is. Certainly, he’d be right at home in the Labour Party in Britain.” Further to the left lies democratic socialism, which supports social ownership of the economy itself.

Ben Judah: The Millennial left is tired of waiting

But these separations are not clean; the lines between social democrats and democratic socialists and progressives and New Deal Democrats are drawn and erased and redrawn over and over again. Making the whole thing more confusing is the fact that Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist, not a proponent of social democracy. Making it even more confusing is the fact that the country’s most popular and influential socialist organization—the DSA’s membership has swelledto nearly 60,000, from just a few thousand a few years ago—endorses Democratic candidates, including Barack Obama and Sanders.

The decision is tactical, Kazin says, and serves to expand the DSA’s influence and the influence of socialist ideas. “Given we have a zero-sum political system and given the fact that the two parties are quite ideologically opposed now, I think a third party on the left would be suicide,” he told me. “It would just help Republicans, as Jill Stein did in 2016.”

Members of Socialist Action, the SPUSA, and other third parties see it differently, arguing that the Democratic Party is irredeemably compromised and that voters deserve true alternatives. “Nothing ever changes without independent mass struggle—independent of the two parties, which both represent, fundamentally, the interests of the rich,” Moorehead told me. “We can’t have a kinder, gentler capitalism.”

The socialists’ campaigns and socialist parties might not be popular. But that idea surely is, as evidenced by Sanders’s success, the populist drift of all the Democratic candidates, and the popularity of proposals like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. Come 2020, there won’t be a socialist in the White House. But there might be some socialism.
 
To be honest, in comparison to European leftists, Bernie Sanders is just as right-wing as all the other Democrats. Hell, even compared to European moderates, he is more to the right in many issues, or at least his most "leftist" ideas are of the kind that has long been considered totally obvious and good by even some right-wingers in European politics. For example, in my country there is exactly zero politicians who would be, at least openly, more right-wing than him. But then again, your Republicans are sooooo far to the right of anything in European politics that it can't be really even compared.
 
To be honest, in comparison to European leftists, Bernie Sanders is just as right-wing as all the other Democrats. Hell, even compared to European moderates, he is more to the right in many issues, or at least his most "leftist" ideas are of the kind that has long been considered totally obvious and good by even some right-wingers in European politics. For example, in my country there is exactly zero politicians who would be, at least openly, more right-wing than him. But then again, your Republicans are sooooo far to the right of anything in European politics that it can't be really even compared.

More evidence the rest of the world is retarded and nobody in America should follow their lead, politically.
 
This is why I'm for California to secede, move all the socialist politicians to there and let them try their ideology while construct the wall around Cali. It will be like watching hunger games in real life.
 
Orwell wrote about his horror of the Soviets (this is a reasonably close paraphrase): "They went down the line and shot anyone with an intelligent looking face. I should hate to think I would be shot simply for being inteeligent."
That's the most horrific thing I've read in years. What is it from?
 
That's the most horrific thing I've read in years. What is it from?
I tracked it down, but my memory was off. It was him referring to the suppression of the Paris Commune in the 1800s.

From The Road to Wigan Pier (one of the best books ever written imo):

"An officer walked down a line of prisoners, picking out likely-looking types. One man was shot because he was wearing a watch, another because he 'had an intelligent face'. I should not like to be shot for having an intelligent
face, but I do agree that in almost any revolt the leaders would tend to be people who could pronounce their aitches."
 
Orwell wrote about his horror of the Soviets (this is a reasonably close paraphrase): "They went down the line and shot anyone with an intelligent looking face. I should hate to think I would be shot simply for being inteeligent."
I always wondered why tankies and antifags looked like the most unfuckable dumbasses on planet Earth, now this sort of explains things
 
I always wondered why tankies and antifags looked like the most unfuckable dumbasses on planet Earth, now this sort of explains things

Disappearing into and becoming a part of the revolutionary mob appeals to people whose individual lives are disappointing to them.
 
Orwell wrote about his horror of the Soviets (this is a reasonably close paraphrase): "They went down the line and shot anyone with an intelligent looking face. I should hate to think I would be shot simply for being inteeligent."

There's a some questions that pop up for me, based on this (and your exact quote, added later) -

- Did the Soviets basically murder a shit-ton of autists, thereby causing a smaller-scale disruption of technological progress than the Dark Ages?
- Are AntiFa all masked up because they're not afraid of being selected as "too intelligent looking"? They're almost universally the sorts of underachieving dolts that make Bart Simpson look like a MENSA member.
- KF members getting purged when?
 
There's a some questions that pop up for me, based on this (and your exact quote, added later) -

- Did the Soviets basically murder a shit-ton of autists, thereby causing a smaller-scale disruption of technological progress than the Dark Ages?
- Are AntiFa all masked up because they're not afraid of being selected as "too intelligent looking"? They're almost universally the sorts of underachieving dolts that make Bart Simpson look like a MENSA member.
- KF members getting purged when?


Well, as for 1, there was really no method to the insanity of the purges.

Say you were an engineer in charge of some part being produced. The quota you’re supposed to meet is unrealistic. So what to do?

You could point out it’s impossible to meet, which could get you shot for defeatism and doubting the wisdom of the party.

But if the plan is later revised, you could get shot for knowing it’s too high and not saying anything.

You could get shot for performing poorly, since the low production rate is undoubtedly a sign of being a “wrecker”.

Or... You could perform too well, and get shot too, since the high production rate could be interpreted as an attempt to make other Soviet factories look poor and underperforming.

As I recall, some British engineers were shot/sent to the camps for warning the authorities about sending freight trains too heavily loaded down the tracks, since the tracks couldn’t take the weight.

They were found guilty of wrecking and anti Soviet activity, since this must have been an attempt at wrecking and slowing down the Soviet economy.

Later on, the tracks gave in, like the engineers had warned about, derailing a train and costing many lives. Since the engineers had already been dealt with by the NKVD, they had to find some other scapegoats to blame for overloading the trains, in a clear and blatant attempt of... You guessed it! Wrecking and anti Soviet activity.
 
Última edición:
Well, as for 1, there was really no method to the insanity of the purges.

Say you were an engineer in charge of some part being produced. The quota you’re supposed to meet is unrealistic. So what to do?

You could point out it’s impossible to meet, which could get you shot for defeatism and doubting the wisdom of the party.

But if the plan is later revised, you could get shot for knowing it’s too high and not saying anything.

You could get shot for performing poorly, since the low production rate is undoubtedly a sign of being a “wrecker”.

Or... You could perform too well, and get shot too, since the high production rate could be interpreted as an attempt to make other Soviet factories look poor and underperforming.

As I recall, some British engineers were shot/sent to the camps for warning the authorities about sending freight trains too heavily loaded down the tracks, since the tracks couldn’t take the weight.

They were found guilty of wrecking and anti Soviet activity, since this must have been an attempt at wrecking and slowing down the Soviet economy.

Later on, the tracks gave in, like the engineers had warned about, derailing a train and costing many lives. Since the engineers had already been dealt with by the NKVD, they had to find some other scapegoats to blame for overloading the trains, in a clear and blatant attempt of... You guessed it! Wrecking and anti Soviet activity.

But when does the KF purge happen.
Oh wait, the search engines are already trying to purge it.
 
I tracked it down, but my memory was off. It was him referring to the suppression of the Paris Commune in the 1800s.

From The Road to Wigan Pier (one of the best books ever written imo):

"An officer walked down a line of prisoners, picking out likely-looking types. One man was shot because he was wearing a watch, another because he 'had an intelligent face'. I should not like to be shot for having an intelligent
face, but I do agree that in almost any revolt the leaders would tend to be people who could pronounce their aitches."

I take it the Khmer Rouge saw this as an instruction manual.
 
Universal health care, affordable college tuition and a social safety net are not any more socialist than roads, police, national defence and social security. The idea that universal health care is socialist is the greatest and most successful lie to ever to be believed in American politics. The insurance companies paid big money for that propaganda and what a ROI!

If you want a healthy, well-adjusted society you must invest it.

or you could just execute anyone who earns less than 100k a year

if they want to live they can just jolly well stop being peasants
 
lol u r exceptional. Affordable education comes in form of completely delegitimizing the existing structure and lowering the cost to entry thereby increasing supply and this competition. Solution is capitalism and government is in the way of making that happen.

The problem is the government funding university and sponsoring loans onto death do us a part. The solution is less government. Always and forever.

It's not the insurance that controls the price of goods and services. It's health industry.

Pensions and social security is a fucking Ponzi scheme that has been raided and emptied.

Again people like u are so dumb you don't even know what the actual problems are and run to socialism to solve your ills.
You should move to Somalia. It is your dream society of barely any government. Don't forget to bring your own infrastructure, educators, doctors and police force.

Western society would be third world without what you call socialism.
 
You should move to Somalia. It is your dream society of barely any government. Don't forget to bring your own infrastructure, educators, doctors and police force.

Western society would be third world without what you call socialism.

And it would be just as bad without capitalism.

Somalia is proof that anarchism does not work.

Venezuela and North Korea are proof that full-fledged state socialism does not work.

You need a few socialized elements in a functional society, but overall a free market economic system is the best.

I can understand the desire for a social democracy (NOT "democratic socialism") but even then, for all its flaws and drawbacks, capitalism is the best system we've got. Especially when compared to anarchism, communism, or feudalism.

Corporatism sucks donkey balls though, but corporatism and capitalism are not synonymous, despite what whiny woke Millennials may say.
 
To be honest, in comparison to European leftists, Bernie Sanders is just as right-wing as all the other Democrats. Hell, even compared to European moderates, he is more to the right in many issues, or at least his most "leftist" ideas are of the kind that has long been considered totally obvious and good by even some right-wingers in European politics. For example, in my country there is exactly zero politicians who would be, at least openly, more right-wing than him. But then again, your Republicans are sooooo far to the right of anything in European politics that it can't be really even compared.
I kind of disagree.
You're right about the fact that in Europe we take things like public healthcare, affordable university and such for granted and no politician, right or left, would ever question that. In general when it comes to economic policies, it's rare to find a politician who is more right wing than an american democrat.
On the other hand, we have plenty of conservative politicians, even more conservative than your average american ones. In my country, for example, part of the left wing party voted against same sex marriage because they believe in the sanctity of marriage.

I think that many Europeans (and many Americans) compare EU and US a lot, without fully understanding how profoundly different our countries are.
Just an example: I genuinely think that public healthcare is good. Having a state funded system is less expensive, and it tends to work fairly well in terms of prevention and access to cures. Europeans live longer and are healthier. While it's true that a private system pushes excellence and if there's an innovation in terms of treatment it will most likely come from the States, an European doctor has nothing to earn from prescribing you meds you probably don't really need for things you could probably solve with physical therapy or a psychologist. So I would even say that, on average, the quality of the cures is better.
If I lived in the US, tho, I'd never want to switch to public healthcare. It'd be a fucking disaster for them. They'd have to change so many things, that it would be a real disaster for their economy, their doctors, their State and their citizens unless they do the changes in half a century in the slowest and most gradual way ever. That obviously can't be done, because no president can make a 50 years plan.
You can't really pay doctors as much in a state funded system. With the way universities work in the states, it would make no sense to get in great debt to not earn much.
You can't prescribe medication as much, because the state is paying for it: US overly medicate its citizens because doctors profit from it. As a result 50% of american adults take painkillers, and 20% take psychiatric drugs. Not saying all of them don't need it, but many of them shouldn't be taking them. You'd end up with millions of addicts looking for a dose if you just cut them off.
You can't prescribe a thousand exams if the state pays for it, but America is overly litigious and they take way too many exams just to have their ass covered. You'd end up with so many doctors being sued.
You'd have to change the way hospitals work, you'd have to destroy insurance, you'd have to change everything in a such profound way that even proposing it seems fucking crazy to me.
Even Obamacare was a fucking mistake (and as an European I find the idea of not having any form of insurance terrifying).

I'm sorry for the spergy long post.
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo