tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post7162159492757975759..comments2024-01-19T04:00:42.885-05:00Comments on Permanent Revolution: Getting up off our knees: race, class and politicsAlex Steinerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09128453587484101609noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-7737289556943731422020-08-29T07:24:53.804-04:002020-08-29T07:24:53.804-04:00Thomas, The article you cite from Trotsky "St...Thomas, The article you cite from Trotsky "Stalinism and Bolshevism" has nothing to do with the discussion here or my positions in relation to Bernie Sanders, if you want to make that case you are free to do so. Why you chose this article in particular to cite from I can only guess, it contains a rebuke of sectariantism from Trotsky in the first paragraph, also your quotations are only from the first paragraph, which seems to suggest that you didn't really read the article at all.<br /><br />I ask whom are you speaking for, because Trotskism is not a political party to my knowldge, and no one is seriously advancing the Transitional Program at the present moment. My understanding of the Transitional Program is that it was a template for sections of the Fourth International all the way back in 1938. The SWP itself had it own version of program[1]. Where is the Transitional Program today? The Sanders program is a popular program, I think its fine to critique, but the main problem is not the program itself, the problem is in how to carry it out. Sanders in endorsing Biden has essentitially abadoned his own program.<br /><br />[1] https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/swp-us/pamphlets/1939-Founding%20Conference-Program%20and%20Resolution.pdfMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04624839910570059635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-49446445227714829762020-08-29T00:13:57.628-04:002020-08-29T00:13:57.628-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04624839910570059635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-20065778889119295082020-07-16T16:31:44.632-04:002020-07-16T16:31:44.632-04:00It’s hard to have a debate when we disagree on the...It’s hard to have a debate when we disagree on the ABCs of Trotskyism. So it's funny we’ve moved from disagreements about a Marxist estimation of Sanders, the danger of class collaboration by being soft on the NND, and what program Trotskyists should base themselves on, to who I am “speaking for” and my style of argumentation. It is in this way that Mark can avoid my political criticisms of his “overall positive” assessment of Sanders, because the truth is that he thinks that drawing the class line and rejecting Sanders is inherently sectarian. From this conclusion he makes a series of baseless accusations.<br /><br />First, Mark accuses me of “quote-hunting”. This is ridiculous. Revolutionary politics requires knowing the positions on those that came before us. Quoting thus becomes necessary as a means of elucidating basic principles. And Cannon and Trotsky are unmistakably shown here insisting that revolutionaries resist consorting with backward strains of political thinking and capitalist parties. NND social-democracy in the United States is one such strain, and the Democratic Party is one such capitalist party. If their conclusions on this score have been outmoded, please show where.<br /><br />Second, what I said is that the “imagination” Democrats have captured is irrelevant to an honest class appraisal of the Sanders/NND program as bourgeois, especially since we want to win the workers to the Transitional Program, as I’ve repeatedly stated. As this will require “imagination” of our own, it is not a “dismissal” of mass psychology of any kind. But if we are to discuss methods of propaganda that a revolutionary party should employ that utilize mass psychology, we must first agree on a program. It’s still quite unclear to me which one Mark wishes for.<br /><br />Thirdly, nowhere did I say that Sanders’ popularity shouldn’t be viewed as an indicator of current consciousness or that I “don’t intend to organize the masses on any significant basis”; Mark simply made that up. What I said was that while workers have moved left, the hegemony of the Democrats over them remain (which itself is an indicator). Sanders’ “useful service” is thus not appreciated in my eyes, because he has successfully made the Democratic Party appear to be something it’s not: A big tent potentially accommodating for all—that is, except for the revolutionary left. That was the aim all along, and he has not accomplished it alone. The Squad, DSA, IMT, SAlt, the Biden-Sanders task force, etc. all feed into this farce and make working people harder to win from capitalism.<br /><br />Mark wants to give Sanders’ “political moment” his due. Absolutely not. I would instead prefer that he lives long enough for him to witness a US worker’s state, which would make a mockery of the bad smell he has left on US politics for so long.<br />Thomas Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160437331705650542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-8871545610220525482020-07-16T11:22:01.443-04:002020-07-16T11:22:01.443-04:00Thomas, I wonder to whom you are speaking for when...Thomas, I wonder to whom you are speaking for when you say "Our task is to expose the Democrats as our class enemies, their programs as illusory, and defeat them."? Do you belong to some kind of organization? What you write in this discussion certainly falls in line with how certain sectarian tendencies view their role politically and their place in the world, as I previously explained: producing shallow "political exposures" and vastly overestimating their relevance, of which you provide yet another example. It also falls in line with how these tendencies view mass psychology, which is to dismiss it. They aren't interested in the popularity of the Sanders program as an indicator of where masses of people are at politically and what they are willing to fight for because they don't intend to organize the masses on any significant basis. I could also take note of the practice of hunting for semi-quotations of the likes of Trotsky, taken out of context to use in polemical battle as an appeal to authority, a characteristic of sectarian polemics, but that's beside the point.<br /><br />I think it's clear that we are not going to agree in our evaluations of Sanders, among other things. I think the campaigns have been overall positive in the effect of raising expectations of the masses and bringing to the fore universal, class oriented policies, where previously only corporate aligned austerity policies and identity tokenism were permitted. This was only possible by bringing this fight within the Democratic party as Jim Creegan notes. In that sense Sanders has done a useful service, but the political moment has moved on. The Democratic Party has proved that it will do everything in its power to crush insurgent movements within its ranks, and Sanders has proved unwilling to break from this party. As Frank says at the conclusion of this article, "we need a breakthrough – and that will only come with the emergence of a mass party opposed to capitalism and its political duopoly."Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04624839910570059635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-13771074059483041672020-07-14T12:15:10.153-04:002020-07-14T12:15:10.153-04:00So, diet social-democrats it is, then.
What does ...So, diet social-democrats it is, then.<br /><br />What does it mean to expose Sanders? To paraphrase James Cannon, it's rather simple: To educate workers in whatever way possible as to which class he supports, is in allegiance to, rather than be enthralled by which class happens to support him at any given moment. Worker political independence is basis of socialist organization, after all. You'd would think this principle—the class line—would be elementary for a revolutionary Marxist. Apparently not. <br /><br />Mark argues that the Sanders program goes beyond him. Indeed, there has long been a strain of New Deal-style politics in the US, and it's very "resonan[t] with millions of people". That the government is loathe to entertain even these meager demands might lead you to entertain the possibility that social-democracy in the US can be a transitional bridge to revolutionary socialist ideas, especially in a right-wing and racist country like this. But in the crunch, class tells. The "New" New Deal is a bourgeois program, even if its promoters are ignored by most of the bourgeoisie, and we Trotskyists already have a program. That is the one we fight for. We'll defend any worker's gains that come from a popular capitalist program. But popularity doesn't obligate our political support for it. <br /><br />The NND mantle has enabled imperialists to posture as "left" opposition by building one-person followings, cynically employing Messianic tropes for emotional cohesion. This is why the "independent" Sanders is such an effective grifter, despite his class betrayals and war crimes. The same goes for careerist phonies like Ocasio-Cortez and "The Squad". Piggybacking this enterprise is politically beyond the pale. Whether the NND program ever bears Sanders' brand is immaterial. However much to the left its adherents have moved, they remain firmly within the orbit of the Democrats.<br /><br />Mark throws "sectarian" around so often that it's difficult to understand what he means. Let's drop the "eerily familiar" weasel words. What is sectarian here? Is it opposing Sanders "by every class criterion" (1)? Defending the Transitional Program over the NND capitalist program? The class line? Rolling my eyes at the utter irrelevance of Sanders reading Lenin and Trotsky? (Fat lot of good it did us!) Let's confuse workers and blur class lines instead by falsely counterpoising "democratic socialism" and "corporate Democrats", as Mark does, and see what happens. Oh wait, we have!<br /><br />Our task is to expose the Democrats as our class enemies, their programs as illusory, and defeat them. Not pontificate over how much "imagination" they have captured. We are supposed to "swim against the current", not to "throw political thinking back to stages long since passed through".(2) Mark is free to consider that "sectarian". But at that point he should stop deluding himself and just admit that he finds revolutionary Trotskyism and Trotsky themselves to be sectarian.<br /><br />(1) https://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1948/02/wallace.htm<br />(2) https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/08/stalinism.htmThomas Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160437331705650542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-5685774541076669762020-07-09T18:13:29.076-04:002020-07-09T18:13:29.076-04:00What does it mean to "expose" Sanders? T...What does it mean to "expose" Sanders? Thomas says that "Just as in 2016, his candidacy was a scam, meant to lead the flock back to US imperialism and capitalism, however circuitous the route." If this is indeed the true purpose of Sanders and his campaign, then what is the meaning of the "Sanders movement"? Why is it named after a politician whose candidacy is a scam? How is it possible that this is a leftward movement at all if it is simply propagating and perpetuating the candidacy of a fraud?<br /><br />I think the sectarians make the mistake that what matters most at the end of the day is how radical or militant their rhetoric sounds, they don't have to offer any competing vision. You see that with their approach to the Sanders program, which again has to be "exposed" as either too reformist or in some way fraudulent. Never mind that the same program found resonance with millions of people, would represent a significant redistribution of wealth, would drastically improve the lives of working class people, etc.<br /><br />Understanding that the Sanders supporter owes their loyalty to a program and not a politician, helps to understand how the Sanders movement can be a genuinely left wing movement independent of Sanders the politician. The Sanders program itself is a bit of a misnomer since it didn't originate purely from him or his campaign, but represents a broad consensus within the left in the US. Again, the sectarians continuing with their political posturing and militant sounding rhetoric would contend that this "left" isn't left all. I don't claim that Thomas is a sectarian or necessarily holds all of these views, but his talking points and rhetorical tone sound eerily familiar.<br /><br />All that being said, there is plenty to criticize in the Sanders the politician including his craven capitulation to Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. Hedges is absolutely right in many of his criticisms, but I see a profound difference in his and Frank's evaluation of Sanders and that of a typical sectarian. I don't think Hedges is writing his article from the point of teaching workers to "despise Sanders to the absolute hilt." It seems he is writing his article from the point of view that Sanders the politician is not up to the task of realizing the goals and aims of the movement which bears his name, a point I think many would agree with here.<br /><br />My only point in bringing up the historical context of Debs is that I believe it makes a huge difference in the perceived or actual courage of left wing political leaders. I don't claim Debs had it easy, but it makes a difference that he was part of an international socialist movement which was much stronger and coherent than exists today, that he was part of leading a labor movement that was on the rise and winning significant battles. Bernie Sanders and AOC by contrast are navigating a much more reactionary political environment. I think it is a significant that Sanders has identified himself as a "democratic socialist", much to the dismay of the corporate Democrats. In doing so he connected his campaign with a broader set of ideals. Of course, the movement of socialism can't rest on the shoulders of a handful of individuals. It should be up to others to educate, too often groups like the DSA and the Jacobin publication end up as cheerleaders for Sanders. Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04624839910570059635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-15866658446863656032020-07-09T12:37:40.453-04:002020-07-09T12:37:40.453-04:00Imagine thinking that steadfastly opposing a bourg...Imagine thinking that steadfastly opposing a bourgeois politician and unrepentant imperialist makes you a "sectarian". Or that it means "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", despite my saying explicitly that the Sanders movement was clearly to his left at key moments and was not fraudulent in itself. But apparently, that's where we're at. “Fraud” is an "absurd" characterization when the entirety of Sanders' political record is taken into account? Here's a better question: Why are Marxist evaluations of Sanders being subconsciously limited from 2016 to the present?<br /><br />Mr. Creegan gets to the heart of the matter when he accurately points out that Sanders was quite loyal to the Democrats, but insists on the "significance of the fight that Sanders unleashed within the Democratic Party". Mark admits that Sanders backed away from his Medicare for All demand at a crucial juncture, but resists "laying all the blame for the failure of the left" on "individuals". Mr. Brenner backs away from his more scathing criticism, evidently not wanting to alienate disgruntled Democrats still feeling the Bern.<br /><br />This kind of talk reeks not of how best to oppose the racist and imperialist Democratic Party, but how to be the best tagtail. Now Trotsky's own prognosis that "The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat" can be thrown into the trash. After all, now there's no reason to expose misleaders like "Sanders" whenever possible, when he makes a play at raising the bourgeois consciousness of the teachers who funded him by funneling their discontent behind the class enemy (the Democrats). Cannon's opposition to Henry Wallace would now be "sectarian". Even Lenin's talk of critical support for labor misleaders "as a rope supports a hanged man" wouldn't be able to escape the accusation of sectarianism here! <br /><br />Everybody is so caught up in what Sanders allegedly represented in his person and his program, they seem to have forgotten that Trotskyists already have their own program. So caught up, that even anti-Bolsheviks like Chris Hedges, who had long understood Sanders’ duplicity, can appear as far left to the Trotskyists here when he said that “Sanders won’t help us. He has made that clear. We must do it without him.” (1) So, then: Are we revolutionary Trotskyists, or diet social-democrats?<br /><br />P.S. Despite Alex's assertion, the only evidence we have for Ocasio-Cortez's "NO" vote on the first stimulus package is her own word. I don't trust it. Nor should anybody else. This is, after all, a woman who pledged to "abolish ICE", only to approve funding for it on her first day in office (H.J.res.1). A move that Harrington would doubtless have approved.<br /><br />(1) https://www.truthdig.com/articles/et-tu-bernie-3/Thomas Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160437331705650542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-71212766719931753902020-06-29T18:04:53.436-04:002020-06-29T18:04:53.436-04:00Linda,
AOC did not support the first stimulus pack...Linda,<br />AOC did not support the first stimulus package. She was the only member of Congress to vote against it.Alex Steinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09128453587484101609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-91303614251580062962020-06-28T15:36:07.793-04:002020-06-28T15:36:07.793-04:00Any and all politicans who voted for the first sti...Any and all politicans who voted for the first stimulous bill is a heiness traitor, as did the squad, sanders included. To lie about their vote as AOC did exacerbates the crime against humanity.Linda zisesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-52676469419166488372020-06-28T15:25:06.809-04:002020-06-28T15:25:06.809-04:00I agree with Mark and Jim. In our criticism of San...I agree with Mark and Jim. In our criticism of Sanders we shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is what Thomas Cain's remarks amount to. If I encouraged the latter approach with my labelling of Sanders as "nothing more than a 'left-talking' Democratic Party hack", then I accept that phrase was ill-advised. Still I want to stress one point. It's true, as Mark says, that the comparison of Sanders to Debs is unfair because the historical contexts are very different - though of course Sanders himself invites such a comparison because of his public veneration of Debs. But that aside, I think we shouldn't underestimate the significance of Sanders's caving to Biden - above all at the critical moment that it occurred. He absconded just as history was giving him an unprecedented opportunity to transform the political landscape. It's like a general who inspires an army to fight and then turns tail at the crucial moment of battle. It's true he wasn't just a bogus general, but that doesn't make the impact of his cowardice any less harmful. <br />fbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-86188394130708020902020-06-24T15:48:23.696-04:002020-06-24T15:48:23.696-04:00I take exception to only one point in Frank Brenne...I take exception to only one point in Frank Brenner's outstanding article: his characterization of Bernie Sanders as a left-posturing Democratic Party hack and betrayer--an accusation carried to absurd lengths in Thomas Cain's comments.<br /><br />A betrayal occurs when politicians renege on their pledges, as, for instance, when Syriza--which ran on a platform saving Greece from creditor-imposed austerity--turned around and implemented the austerity measures they were elected to resist. Sanders' endorsement of Biden, however, came as no surprise; he committed himself to endorsing the Democratic presidential nominee from the beginning of his campaign.<br /><br />I'm not so much concerned to defend Sanders' honor as to avoid the error of missing the reality and significance of the fight that Sanders unleashed within the Democratic Party. and which continues despite his withdrawal. The social-democratic measures that Sanders has promoted throughout his political career would not have been considered all that radical in an earlier era, and certainly don't amount to socialism. But they fly in the face of the neoliberal austerity that both parties have labored to impose over the past forty years. This is why the Democratic establishment was seized with thinly concealed horror at the prospect of Sanders becoming the party's nominee, and continue to do everything in their power to defeat his allies in the primaries.<br /><br />Many Sandernistas--most notably in DSA-- are to the left of Sanders and his allies. Some regard politicians like AOC, ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib as wavering and inconsistent in pursuit of their "progressive" agendas, and wrong to endorse Biden and other establishment candidates. But these followers are also correct in viewing Sanders and "the squad" as something more than disingenuous, sheep-dogging party hacks. <br /><br />Bernie Sanders could not have been aware of the dimensions of the Covid-19 and black-lives crises that erupted after he quit the primaries and endorsed Biden, but his loyalty to the Democrats would no doubt have prevented him from taking advantage of any possibilities for independent politics, even if he had foreseen these events. This doesn't mean, however, that other "progressive" candidates may not be persuaded--or pressured--to refrain from endorsing centrist candidates when they lose in primaries. The working-class party that Brenner rightly advocates will probably come about, at least in part, as a result of defections of Democratic voters and younger candidates.This possibility is not increased by dismissing the efforts of such candidates in advance.<br /><br />My difference with Brenner is probably no more than one of tone. But in politics tone can be important. <br /><br />Jim Creegan<br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992939766784862719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-36294793226769984562020-06-16T19:28:27.645-04:002020-06-16T19:28:27.645-04:00"The workers must be taught to despise Sander...<i>"The workers must be taught to despise Sanders to the absolute hilt."</i><br /><br />I can understand both the dissapointment and even anger with Bernie Sanders, but what I don't understand is making him into the political target or boogeyman that the sectarians want him to be. Did Sanders do anything positive in the course of his political carrer? Was there anything positive about his campaigns in 2016 and 2020, and if not on what basis is it possible to engage his supporters? If his the man and everything he represents is fraudulent, isn't the movement that he lead by extension fraudulent? I think this point of view is both cynical and demoralized.<br /><br />From what I know of Sanders besides being an activist during the civil rights movement he also studied the classics of Marxism during his college days: Lenin, Trotsky, and Marx. Just on the face of it, he seems to have a far better understanding of political program and capturing people's imaginations than the so-called "othodox Trotskyists", even if he doesn't have realistic a path for realizing his program. Just on that point, again a lot of critiques from the left seem to echo the corporate media talking points, "How are you going to pay for it? How are you going to pass that?" Sanders at least acknowledged that it would take a movement to realize his program.<br /><br />I think Frank's critique is spot on in the sense that Sanders didn't follow the logic of his own campaign. During the pandemic he backed away from Medicare for All, and now with the Floyd protests he's kept his distance. What better time to take on the political establishment when the same establishment is so obviously failing masses of people?<br /><br />Without repeating the same points further, I think there is problem with laying all the blame for the failure of the left at the doorstep of a handful of prominent individuals like Sanders, AOC, etc. I think a big piece of the puzzle in understanding someone like Debs is understanding social context. Debs came out the labor movement during its rise and was a product of the radical politics of his day, for one a far more coherent international socialist movement than exists today.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04624839910570059635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-29016334958267507982020-06-15T16:20:09.200-04:002020-06-15T16:20:09.200-04:00Over the course of the election, it became clear t...Over the course of the election, it became clear that what the Sanders movement wanted and what Sanders himself wanted diverged in several important respects. A prime example is how Sanders' followers decried his Russophobia, and expressed dismay at his refusal to defend Julian Assange/Wikileaks, who exposed how he was cheated in 2016. So no, I do not believe that the movement is "fraudulent". Quite the opposite, in fact.<br /><br />But Sanders absolutely is. His program had no chance of being enacted; the US bourgeoisie simply wouldn't allow any incursions onto their state. Sanders understood this well. In February, his campaign revealed an aggressive unilateral approach upon election (1), with his policy plans to be implemented under executive decree. It should go without saying that under the conditions of encroaching bonapartist military-police rule in the United States, revolutionaries should unconditionally oppose such extra-parliamentary adventures. Such devices would inevitably be turned against us, and Sanders is quite the anticommunist.<br /><br />More could be said about Sanders' in his role as sheepdog. He repeatedly lied about which wars he didn't support (calling to invade Iraq in 1998, for example). He touted immigration reform but stopped short of calling for US citizenship, only calling for an audit of current ICE practices. He waxes against "racial" intolerance but scapegoats China and Mexico as job-stealers every chance he gets. He called for US military withdrawals, but joined USAID's saber-rattling with Venezuela, called to invade North Korea if their nukes aren't disarmed, and fought to keep a notorious weapons manufacturer in his home state of Vermont. Oh, and he betrayed the working class to capital (again) with that awful COVID-19 stimulus package. And so on.<br /><br />So if he falsifies his political history, and if his policy proposals are shown up as phony by his actions in the Senate, what exactly is left? You have a fraud, a scam-artist--and a launderer for the Democratic Party's faux-oppositional image. He deserves to be called out as such. The workers must be taught to despise Sanders to the absolute hilt. He is a political descendant of those reformist "friends" of the working class that James Cannon warned against in his "History of American Trotskyism". Good riddance to him.<br /><br />(1) https://jacobinmag.com/2020/02/bernie-executive-orders-democracy-movements<br /><br />Thomas Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160437331705650542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-63068526793767475832020-06-15T14:53:10.190-04:002020-06-15T14:53:10.190-04:00Reply to Thomas Cain,
I don't agree at all wi...Reply to Thomas Cain,<br /><br />I don't agree at all with this statement,<br />"his candidacy was a scam, meant to lead the flock back to US imperialism and capitalism"<br /><br />If you mean by that statement that Sanders deliberately ran for President in order to fool his supporters into returning to traditional capitalist politics, then that is just absurd. It's a form of conspiracy theory and has little in common with Marxism. <br /><br />If you mean that the movement behind Sanders wanted to see a fundamental change in society but was confused about how to bring that about then I would agree. But again the fact that the movement was confused about how to achieve its goals does not mean that it was a "fraudulent" movement from the beginning. The Sanders movement represented a genuine albeit very confused movement to the left that had the potential for a rupture with the two party system. That this did not happen can be laid at the feet of the limitations of Sanders himself, who when push came to shove, decided that he would rather remain in the fold of the Democratic Party then lead a real political revolution. Alex Steinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09128453587484101609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-62219150905763813602020-06-14T18:25:49.055-04:002020-06-14T18:25:49.055-04:00We don't know for sure that the Sanders campai...We don't know for sure that the Sanders campaign actually refused corporate donors. The pro-Sanders "Our Revolution" (OR), for instance, is a 501(c)(4) non-profit that is not obligated to make their donor list public, and "much of [its funding] came from those who contributed six-figure sums."(1). This caused a stink among OR staff in 2016, and the majority of staff promptly walked out (2). Furthermore, he brazenly continued to solicit donations even after he suspended his campaign.<br /><br />None of this is to suggest that Sanders' supporters shouldn't feel betrayed, but even New Deal Democrats like Jimmy Dore had been correctly warning for months that Sanders wasn't running a serious campaign. Just as in 2016, his candidacy was a scam, meant to lead the flock back to US imperialism and capitalism, however circuitous the route. <br /><br />What is left of the populist hope he whipped up? Well, now he seriously contends that the capitalist police should be paid more. An otherwise fitting end for a war criminal and a monster.<br /><br />(1) https://apnews.com/345bbd1af529cfb1e41305fa3ab1e604<br />(2) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-our-revolution-group.htmlThomas Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06160437331705650542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2062509833711600070.post-10998298303081445512020-06-11T15:18:58.339-04:002020-06-11T15:18:58.339-04:00There is an incidious rage at Sanders for betrayin...There is an incidious rage at Sanders for betraying the millions of students, workers, victims of the cruel and unjust capitalist laws and lack of regulations, who were and still feel betrayed by sanders and by the squad, AOC included. People gave him money and in return by the end of his campaign he accepted corporate money. Before our eyes he deteriorated into an old tired outdated and out performed controller of the emerging force of change that we now see on American streets. There are specific demands coming out of the Seattle city hall takeover. In Chicago police are suddenly visible in white middleclass neighborhoods riding bikes in groups of three. Funny how they placed theirselves on higher ground then those they have sworn to protect.<br />The national guard might turn on trump. They come from and are the workers<br />Earning what once seemed like easy money. <br /> What we are seeing along with the unending uncovering of the fundamental political factors is the undeniable importance of the essential workforce who are for the most part people of color, the undocumented, the immigrants. <br />The jails are filled with essential workers treated like slaves. Forced to live on pittance while under military level discipline. Change is coming from the millions of unemployed, the destroyed small business owners, students stranded without hope.<br />It will be the citizens who have huge debts and fears of homelessness, lack of descent clothing, food who are forced to live in compromised environments where air and water are polluted by the greatest criminals tbe world has ever known.<br />People have woken up and although the ruling elite has the supposed power of the might they lack the appreciation, the understanding of the ever enraged force that is breaking down their power walls demanding their annilation.Linda ziseshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12121981880841694140noreply@blogger.com