PyramidHead
Contributor
He's a social democrat, and like all social democrats representing imperial settler-colonial states, his aim is not to end all oppression and exploitation but to channel its spoils to workers rather than capitalists in his own country.
He critiques the billions of dollars that is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority, but instead of acknowledging that those billions are stolen from the workers and resources of other countries, he simply laments the fact that we don't use that stolen wealth for American school children and health care for Americans.
He repeats most, but not all, US State Department talking points about actual socialist and communist societies. In days past, he had nice things to say about some of their leaders, but now is basically on the same page as the rest of the foreign policy establishment about Venezuela, China, and other places that had the audacity to protect the revolutions they staged against their oppressors. In this regard, he is basically like Noam Chomsky, who criticizes all authority even when it is wielded by those he claims to represent.
He doesn't advocate state or even collective ownership of the basic means of production in society. He wants some nationalization around the edges, perhaps for big banks, but more often uses the "break them up" verbiage rather than "expropriate". This reflects his goal of making the conditions of wage labor more acceptable to workers without changing the system of wage labor itself.
He reveals the shallowness of his "socialism" when he uses Martin Luther King Jr.'s line about how America is "socialism for the rich, rugged capitalism for the poor." In criticizing Trump, Bernie has called him "a socialist, but for his rich friends." This is something no socialist would say; socialism is, by definition, a system in which the majority of workers exercises democratic control over the ownership class in order to transition society towards communism. Bernie is probably just being rhetorical here, but it's consistent with his other ideas: he, like most Americans, thinks of socialism as a paternalistic government that takes care of those harmed the most by capitalism, while not threatening but only mitigating capitalism's ugliest effects slightly.
Again, this view is basically an endorsement of continued imperialism and resource extraction from Africa, Asia, and South America, but using those resources in a more egalitarian way within American borders.
So, why should socialists and communists support Bernie Sanders? The reason is class consciousness. Political leaders who run on platforms that are, relative to the prevailing consensus, social-ish, can galvanize revolutionary sentiment in the population. I'm an example of a communist who was brought into the left wing by Bernie's 2016 run, and I know several others who are on the same path. Like them, I started with Bernie and his praise of "the Nordic model", got mad at the CIA after reading Noam Chomsky, and got mad at Noam Chomsky after reading Michael Parenti. Now I read Mao, Stalin, and Lenin, and I wish Bernie Sanders was 1% as socialist as everybody seems to think he is.
But I acknowledge that (1) improving conditions of the working class in the imperial core can lead to a more organized and militant left wing, (2) adopting social democratic policies is, in the American moment, probably the only viable path to ameliorating climate catastrophe, and (3) the opportunity to take part in a movement to revitalize socialist ideals may not come again. However, my fear is that should Bernie become president, it will have the effect of placating the left wing rather than activating them. This has happened everywhere social democratic reform has taken place, and eventually a resurgent far-right movement will take advantage of this false sense of security and you get Juan Guaido or Boris Johnson.
I hope that the left is continually energized even if Bernie wins, because he doesn't fix even half of what's wrong about America even if every one of his policy proposals becomes a reality.
He critiques the billions of dollars that is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority, but instead of acknowledging that those billions are stolen from the workers and resources of other countries, he simply laments the fact that we don't use that stolen wealth for American school children and health care for Americans.
He repeats most, but not all, US State Department talking points about actual socialist and communist societies. In days past, he had nice things to say about some of their leaders, but now is basically on the same page as the rest of the foreign policy establishment about Venezuela, China, and other places that had the audacity to protect the revolutions they staged against their oppressors. In this regard, he is basically like Noam Chomsky, who criticizes all authority even when it is wielded by those he claims to represent.
He doesn't advocate state or even collective ownership of the basic means of production in society. He wants some nationalization around the edges, perhaps for big banks, but more often uses the "break them up" verbiage rather than "expropriate". This reflects his goal of making the conditions of wage labor more acceptable to workers without changing the system of wage labor itself.
He reveals the shallowness of his "socialism" when he uses Martin Luther King Jr.'s line about how America is "socialism for the rich, rugged capitalism for the poor." In criticizing Trump, Bernie has called him "a socialist, but for his rich friends." This is something no socialist would say; socialism is, by definition, a system in which the majority of workers exercises democratic control over the ownership class in order to transition society towards communism. Bernie is probably just being rhetorical here, but it's consistent with his other ideas: he, like most Americans, thinks of socialism as a paternalistic government that takes care of those harmed the most by capitalism, while not threatening but only mitigating capitalism's ugliest effects slightly.
Again, this view is basically an endorsement of continued imperialism and resource extraction from Africa, Asia, and South America, but using those resources in a more egalitarian way within American borders.
So, why should socialists and communists support Bernie Sanders? The reason is class consciousness. Political leaders who run on platforms that are, relative to the prevailing consensus, social-ish, can galvanize revolutionary sentiment in the population. I'm an example of a communist who was brought into the left wing by Bernie's 2016 run, and I know several others who are on the same path. Like them, I started with Bernie and his praise of "the Nordic model", got mad at the CIA after reading Noam Chomsky, and got mad at Noam Chomsky after reading Michael Parenti. Now I read Mao, Stalin, and Lenin, and I wish Bernie Sanders was 1% as socialist as everybody seems to think he is.
But I acknowledge that (1) improving conditions of the working class in the imperial core can lead to a more organized and militant left wing, (2) adopting social democratic policies is, in the American moment, probably the only viable path to ameliorating climate catastrophe, and (3) the opportunity to take part in a movement to revitalize socialist ideals may not come again. However, my fear is that should Bernie become president, it will have the effect of placating the left wing rather than activating them. This has happened everywhere social democratic reform has taken place, and eventually a resurgent far-right movement will take advantage of this false sense of security and you get Juan Guaido or Boris Johnson.
I hope that the left is continually energized even if Bernie wins, because he doesn't fix even half of what's wrong about America even if every one of his policy proposals becomes a reality.
