• eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      i keep regretting donating to this guy’s campaigns more and more every year.

      • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It’s not really arguable, of course he is a liberal. He supports capitalism and its ideology.

        He confuses people by saying that socialism is when you have universal government-funded healthcare and points to places like Norway, which is a capitalist country.

        • tetris11@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I see that as him stooping to their level to convey the idea of a better system using the concepts they understand.

          As for him advocating Harris, party disunity can be a global win if the electoral system uses some kind of proportional representation, but in a FPTP system party loyalty is important before an election. The progressives should start to criticize their government once that government is in power (not a given right now), not before.

          • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Bernie isn’t playing a strategic game to offer a socdem vision. One could maybe argue that when he was getting the spotlight during his presidential runs. But after 4 straight years of being a sheepdog for the Democrats that are currently committing a genocide to prop up its settler-colonial asset in the Middle East, we know better. Bernie is to the right of basically anyone currently reachable with his 2016/2020 platform and literally nobody is hearing him provide such a vision because he isn’t talking about those things. There is no plan.

            As for him advocating Harris, party disunity can be a global win if the electoral system uses some kind of proportional representation, but in a FPTP system party loyalty is important before an election.

            The Democratic Party is a liberal party. Being in unity with a liberal party makes you a liberal. The voting system is totally independent of this. There have been non-electoral liberal parties and non-electoral socialist parties.

            What you are describing is that Bernie thinks of his alleged principles as subordinate to liberal party interests.

            The progressives should start to criticize their government once that government is in power (not a given right now), not before.

            If they want any pretense at influencing the political class they need to build and use leverage. Criticizing politicians is part of leverage, it is creating a way in which people could consider not voting for them if they don’t change the thing that was criticized. In American bourgeoois electoralism, agonizing over individual votes is the only thing commonly understood as something akin to leverage.

            Your logic here is the complete reverse. You are saying to not criticize or make demands when you have leverage (a vote you could cast in way you want) and to only try to push after you have given up your leverage (voted).

            There’s also plenty of recent history showing how Dem politicians, particularly presidents, 100% do not care what you think once they are in office. They don’t have to, do they? You’re going to hold your tongue, hold your nose, and vote for them anyways! All they need us to trot out the same PR lines every 4 years and stack up enough cash for campaigning or, in this election, not be noticeably senile.

            • tetris11@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              I still see his actions as rational.

              It’s a two party system. If you want to get into a position where you can enact change, you pretty have much have to be subordinate to one party or another.

              If your party is guaranteed a landslide victory (or hell, guaranteed no victory), then by all means feel free to state your true beliefs in a bid to drag them back to the left.

              But this is going to be a close call election. Better to sleep with a tired donkey who might let you have a voice later, than a deaf elephant who will let you have no voice at all.

              • rando895@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                If you are elected into a position where you can enact change, those who elected you have expectations of you based on the policy you supported during the election.

                If, then, you turn around and do something completely different your actions no longer reflect the will of those who elected you, and you are not behaving in a representative manner and thus in an undemocratic way.

                So ignoring anything specific to the American system, class interests, etc., it is a losing battle to try and be anything different from the status quo and getting elected by aligning yourself with the status quo.

                A communist who gets elected by siding with a fascist is no longer a communist. A liberal cannot be a liberal if they denounce capitalism and side with socialists. They are fundamentally different ideas of who the political economy is designed for, completely contradictory ideas about hierarchy, property rights, human rights, and even what constitutes truth (liberal ideas are often utopian, like the “rational economic man”, and socialist/communist ideas are often based in the reality of the current and past material conditions, like believing people need homes and food, and a wealthy society should be able to provide these for itself, so people get homes and food. In contrast a liberal society would let the “market” provide these things in whatever way is profitable.

              • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                It’s a two party system. If you want to get into a position where you can enact change, you pretty have much have to be subordinate to one party or another.

                That us how the fairy tale goes, yes. The more accurate way to describe it is that if you want to join the political class as a member of one if the two major parties (which makes it easier to do so), you must not cross their red lines and you must fall in line.

                There is more that could be said about that, but Bernie was elected as an independent and has a safe seat. As such, he could provide a vision and build a movement if he wanted to. Instead, he supports genocide. There is no strategem. It is just an old liberal supporting the system he has supported since the 80s.

                If your party is guaranteed a landslide victory (or hell, guaranteed no victory), then by all means feel free to state your true beliefs in a bid to drag them back to the left.

                This is the same false logic I addressed in my previous comment.

                But this is going to be a close call election. Better to sleep with a tired donkey who might let you have a voice later, than a deaf elephant who will let you have no voice at all.

                The opposite is actually the case. It was far easier to advocate left ideas under Trump than under Biden. Liberals go to sleep between elections when their party is at the helm. They become the defenders of the status quo rather than “the resistance” (lol).

                The things you are saying are lines handed down by PR strategists hired by the party over decades. They are not true, just common and often repeated. Their purpse is just to keep you a reliable voter despite them not delivering for you.

          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            People don’t know their asses from their elbows. Liberalism has a definition, which Marxists (and still some liberal Europeans) have never forgotten, though thanks to red scare purges and two cold wars, others have forgotten. Now, in Orwellian fashion, “liberalism” and “socialism” are floating signifiers, so we have liberals like Sanders calling themselves socialists, despite never calling for abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

            Wikipedia: socialism: Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.

            Wikipedia: liberalism: Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.

            “Private property,” a.k.a. “the means of production.”

            • Rhaedas@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Socialism, democratic socialism, and socialist democrats are related ideas, complex themselves, but not the same thing as usually used in political discussions where labels are thrown around. Same with liberals, leftists, and generally the left. Everyone uses these simplified words in their soundbites, assuming the other people hearing them agree with the meanings used, and usually they are completely different. No wonder we can’t agree on anything.

          • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            American politicians throw around the word “communist” as an insult because it is an easy way to leverage “communism is bad/the enemy” sentiments built up by propaganda during the cold war. Americans, overall, tend to have absolutely no idea what communism is or what socialism is. The history and definitions aren’t taught in school and what is taught is simplistic and incorrect. Despite its pretenses of open investigation, Americans are heavily propagandized.

            Biden and Bernie aren’t that far from one another, in reality. They both support the oppressive political economic system that drives most misery and deprivation around the world and, as you can see in this post, Bernie falls in line behind Biden/Harris despite supposedly disagreeing with them. He thinks he is on their team and that it would be bad to actually oppose them in any principle, including the current genocide in Palestine that both of them support. He was also screwed over by Biden and the party twice when he ran for president and still does things like this, which tells you how committed he is to subjugsting himself to the political organs of capital.

            Communism can be a term that is hard to understand because not only do Americans use it without having any idea what it means, it has been used with meaning in at least three different ways. In terms of Marxist theory, communism is a predicted way of being free of states, class, etc that comes about due to the working class controlling economic production. Communists are a particular brand of Marxists that seek to overturn the capitalist order and elevate the working class via a disciplined party structure and way of understanding the world. Finally, the concept of a communist country has often been used to describe those countries where communust revolutions succeeded and they control the state. Of course, those states cannot themselves constitute communism in the Marxist sense because they are nation-states and Marx’s communism has no states.

            It may also be helpful for me to talk about the term “liberal”. Historically and around the world, liberalism has stood for the dominant political ideology of capitalism and is a product of capitalism. It holds that markets should be created and maintained for capitalism and tends to promote a very specific version of democracy that suits capital’s interests and keeps it in control. As the dominant ideology of this domineering system, it is if course very undemocratic, particularly when it comes to destroying other countries. This is what most people around the world see as liberalism and it is what socialists criticize as liberalism. In the US, however, lineral has come to mean “arguably slightly left of center”, a goalpost that of course moves around. Though often American " liberals" are very right wing and are even to the right of Republicans on many issues.

            But in the usual international sense, virtually every politician in the United States is a liberal.

            • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Though often American " liberals" are very right wing and are even to the right of Republicans on many issues.

              I was following you up to this point but I don’t understand this.

              Even though the democrats would be considered right of center in many countries, I can’t think of a single issue that the current GOP isn’t further right on.

              • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                There are two ways you can think of what I said.

                The first is for individual politicians. For example, there is a Democratic House member somewhat near me that is extremely nationslist and anti-China. Their Republican opponent said we need to work with China. The Dem us to the right of the Republican on that foreign policy issue.

                More interesting is policies that require coordination, like at the national level. A recent example is Democrats’ attempt to outflank Republicans from the right on the border. Republicans prevented the bill from passing, but it was a right wing move and beyond what the GOP has tried to pass in decades. For a successful example of this, look at the rebranding of Democrats as pro-cop. Biden has provided more funding to cops than any other politician since Reagan. The Dems’ response to massive protests against racial oppression and racialized policing in particular was to make false promises about reining in the police and then massively increasing their budgets. Another example is foreign policy, where Democrats are now the option for more effective stewards of the American empire. This is why Dick Cheney, the war criminal, is announcing his vote for Harris.

                Aside from rightward moves, there is a related point that is important. Virtually every policy that Democrats are “left” of Republicans on is one that they do not fight for and instead use as a campaigning tool. So their “left” stances mean very little. When American Dem voters complain about their politicians not getting things done or being incompetent, they are describing this intentional act of deceit whether they know it or not. For example, Obama’s Democrats had a huge majority in Congress and the presidency and didn’t force any of their platform through. Obama even announced just 3 months into his first term that codifying Roe v. Wade was not a priority despite the fact that he campaigned on it. Dems are still campaigning on abortion rights at the national level despite doing nothing about it. They didn’t even try to build a sustained protest movement. They just sent their politicians to rallies and converted the outrage and enthusiasm into “vote blue”, and the liberals heard that and went home.

    • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Bernie has been nothing but consistent. Selling out to the neolibs and supporting imperialism is nothing new for him. Don’t forget how he shilled for Clinton and Biden when he “lost” the nomination to the establishment candidates. He praised the police after George Floyd’s murder and praising the ghoul, Jeff Bezos, for raising the wages of Amazon and Whole Foods workers to $15/hour in 2018, only 6 years after the “Fight for $15” began (while they were investing heavily in automation, never improved their labor practices, and indications were that they had always raised wages during similar economic conditions so they could meet their seasonal employment needs, surely Bernie fostered a change in Bezos’ empty heart).

      Here’s a disorganized list of some of Bernie’s votes ranging from the early 1990s to the 2020s:

      • Voted in favor of H.R. Res. 64 Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001, giving Bush Jr. carte blanche to use military force against those the US found responsible for 9/11. He continues to support “The War on Terror” by voting in favor of the authorization of additional funds for US military actions in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. In March 2003, he voted in favor of a resolution expressing unequivocal support of Bush Jr and the Armed forces for their actions regarding Operation Iraqi freedom. This is an odd choice considering he voted against the authorization of military action in Iraq in 2003, something he like to brag about when in the media spotlight. What good is voting against a war if you are going to repeatedly vote to fund it for years afterwards?

      • Voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. This included economic sanctions that killed up to 500,000 children. This same resolution allowed for direct military action in Iraq (Operation Desert Fox). He had previously voted against the Invasion of Iraq in 1991.

      • Voted in favor of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act in 1996. Then voted to extend these in 2001. This was meant to cripple the ability of each country to develop their own petroleum industries.

      • Voted in favor of bombing Kosovo in 1999. This decision led to him quite publicly losing staffers and long-time friends as well as an anti-war protest in his office. I wonder why?

      • Voted in favor of sending military hardware and funding to Israel in 1997, 1994, and 2004. In 2006, he voted in favor of economic sanctions against Palestine after Hamas won an elections in order to remove them from power. His support of the Israeli military also extended to their actions in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2014, but surely that was the end of his support, right?

      • Remember that racist, dumpster fire of a movie “Black Hawk Down” which inaccurately portrayed the events that led to the US pulling out of the conflict in Somalia? Bernie voted for that military intervention.

      • Supported providing $1 billion in military aid and training to Ukraine in December of 2014. I’m sure all of this was used in defense and none of it contributed to the conflicts that killed civilians from 2015 to today. I’m also sure that Bernie would never again vote to send funding to continue or escalate this war and the suffering it’s caused.

      • Refused to end the drone program while running for president in 2016 and 2020 as he thinks it’s useful and promised that he would use it responsibly if elected.

      • Supported military action in Libya, Lebanon, Bosnia, Yemen, Syria, Congo, Haiti, Liberia, and Sudan.

      I’m tired of describing how his actions have spoken and I haven’t even gotten into his economics and how far removed he is from a socialist on the front too. There’s plenty to criticize even if you aren’t a socialist or don’t expect him to do a socialism.

      The point is that any integrity Bernie Sanders had as a revolutionary or leftist was lost decades ago. His radical stances and actions are romanticized now. The only way Sanders is relevant to progressives and socialists these days is how he acted as a catalyst for driving many people in the US further left.

        • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Despite calling Bernie out for at least some of his shit, I do think he has generally been one of the better Democrat senators in terms of progressive domestic policies. I wonder now if anyone actually can climb to that political level without being corrupted or rejected and black-listed by the system.

          I used to support the Democrats and him in particular. It was demoralizing to see how he supported the DNC after his 2016 and 2020 campaigns, but I think there are lessons we can learn from his career. For me, he represents a good example of how operating in good faith within the existing US political system as a path to major reform is not a viable strategy (Jill Stein as well), but that you need to build organizations outside of this structure to seize political power and force the change that the system resists. Unions and other community organizations. The attempt at a general strike led by the UAW in 2028 for example.

          I don’t believe this will fundamentally change any systems within the US, nothing short of revolution would achieve this, but I think it is an opportunity to improve lives. It’s a chance to show people not only that they have power, but how to build the power to fight for themselves.

          Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m tired of putting my faith in these people when, you’re right, it feels like they’ve given up all pretense and dropped the bar on the floor. All they’ve ever done is disappoint me. Working and learning from socialist and labor organizations has given me hope again that there is a path to change.