Okay, I've gone through this before, but here I go again. The social
democrats were once what became communists. They came out of the
International Workingmen's Association that was founded by Karl Marx and
was also known as the First International. When that collapsed they were
the founders of the second International, commonly known as the
Socialist International and the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party
(RSDLP) was part of the Second International. It was in the lead up to
the Russian revolution that the RSDLP split. It was the
Menshevik/Bolshevik split. The Mensheviks followed Karl Kautsky who had
the idea that socialism could be achieved by running in bourgeois
elections, getting elected and passing laws that would gradually achieve
socialism. Their program was at least radical enough that they proposed
to achieve their goals by any means necessary including playing by
bourgeois rules. They seemed to ignore the fact that social democrats
were being murdered by the tsarist police for even daring to have social
democratic views, let alone taking action on them. The Bolsheviks had
the position that armed self defense was necessary. But the Mensheviks
were not only willing to play by the enemy's rules, but they actually
expected the enemy to play by its own rules and they have been betraying
the international working class ever since by doing that. In fact, the
most recent example of what happens when you do that is what you can see
in Venezuela right now. Their betrayal became blatant when World War I
started and the individual sections of the Second International threw
their support behind the governments of their own countries. They did
that even when other sections in opposing countries were throwing their
support behind their own countries thus, effectively, making different
sections of the Second International war enemies of each other. Then
during the war and after the war they continued to electorally join
bourgeois governments and to support bourgeois governments as part of
the so-called loyal opposition. I would emphasize the word loyal in the
phrase loyal opposition. They always remained loyal to the capitalist
masters. By the way, I remember when Karl Kautsky's book that explicated
the original principles of the Mensheviks was added to Bookshare and I
just now looked for it and it is not there. I suppose it must have been
withdrawn. But it has been a long time since they bothered to follow
their founding principles anyway. Once they started regularly winning
seats in parliaments and functioning as the loyal opposition in those
parliaments they started regarding the bourgeois politicians as their
colleagues and acted like it. They would strike deals with the
bourgeoisie, back down when they were outvoted in parliament and form
coalitions with bourgeois forces in those parliaments. That is, they
entirely lost their original class perspective. The social democrats
essentially became capitalist parties. They kept calling themselves
socialists, but were they really socialists? I will point to the British
Labour Party and ask if they are really socialists then why has the
Labour Party shied away from the word for so long now. I think there has
been a slight resurgence of the word recently, but then they back down
from it as if they are afraid of it. But let me go back to what
socialism actually is. For one thing, it is not capitalism. It is the
dialectical contradiction of capitalism. At a minimum if someone is
going to be a socialist he or she must be in favor of the social
ownership and democratic control of the means of production. If that is
not socialism then you may as well trash the word socialism because it
would mean nothing. If there is nothing to distinguish between socialism
and capitalism then there is no need for either the word socialism nor
the word capitalism. If you think that is not socialism then the simple
fact is that you know nothing about the subject. As harsh as that might
seem it is true. If you don't accept the minimal definition of the word
then there is little reason to even suggest that you know what you are
talking about at all. By the way, you recently said something about the
Marxist definition of socialism. Actually, I am not sure that there is a
Marxist definition of socialism any more than there is a Marxist
definition of fascism. Fascism did not yet exist in Marx's time, but
socialism did and it was well known what it was. Marx simply took the
word for what it meant and proposed a methodology for achieving it. He
did not invent the word nor did he try to redefine it. I will point out
again that this minimal definition encompasses a lot of different
ideologies. It includes people that I am in extreme opposition to. It is
a very broad definition. And since you mentioned Silvy recently I will
say that it was at this point that she said what you were alluding to.
Right after I defined the word so that it included movements that I am
totally opposed to she condescendingly told me that there were different
kinds of socialism and that my little group is not the only kind. It is
incredible how exasperating it is that I can put forth so much effort to
explain things and then have someone show that I was not the least bit
being listened to. But, anyway, do the social democrats count as
socialists by that minimal definition? I will say that some of them do.
Ever since that betrayal of the international working class in World War
I they have as a whole been drifting further and further to the right.
They have drifted so far to the right that actually most of them do not
qualify as socialists anymore. They do not even have a perspective of
opposing capitalism at all. Their perspective is still one of reforming
capitalism, but it is no longer even one of reforming it out of
existence. It is a perspective of somehow making capitalism nicer and
then only if it does not offend the right wing capitalists. That is, not
only have they become indistinguishable from liberals, but they have
become liberals. As for the ones who are still technically socialists,
those are the left wing social democrats. Yes, some of them do still
think that if they keep getting elected and are careful to be ever so
nice to the capitalists that they can eventually reform capitalism out
of existence. I think they are dead wrong about how to abolish
capitalism, but if they do still want to abolish it then I will have to
admit that they are technically socialists. So is Bernie Sanders one of
those left wing social democrats? I don't see any evidence that he is.
He does not even belong to a social democrat organization. At least
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can make that claim, but Bernie Sanders does
not even try. Does he advocate the replacement of the capitalist system
with socialist property relations? There is not even a hint of it from
him. Well, if there is a left-wing of the social democrats then there
must be a right-wing of the social democrats. In Europe the right-wing
social democrats are often to the right of American liberals, sometimes
way to the right of American liberals. That tendency is pronounced in
the British Labour Party where they are even ashamed to use the word
socialism anymore. I suppose they have good reason to be ashamed of it
because they certainly no longer make any socialist proposals nor
advocate anything that is socialist. I will say that at least Bernie
Sanders is not to the right of most American liberals, but there is
nothing there to distinguish him from a liberal. So he must be a
liberal. If people to the right of him can call themselves social
democrats then I suppose he has as much right to do so as they do, but I
don't see that either they nor him have much right to call themselves
socialists.
___
Sam Harris
“ I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people
became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs. ”
― Sam Harris,
On 1/16/2020 5:18 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Bernie Sanders is, as far as I'm concerned, a Social Democrat, or at least, that is the kind of
government he is promoting at this point in time. He may very well have been a socialist in the
past. But what he is doing is attempting to organize a very heterogeneous public around the
necessity of reigning in the excesses of Capitalism. And he, and others, are using the word,
"socialism", to symbolize that. And because labels are less important to me than they
are to you, and because what he has been doing is working, I'm not complaining. There are huge
numbers of young people, not just the folks I hear on podcasts, who want things to change. Those
huge numbers of people are not flocking to the Socialist Workers' Party, but they are flocking to
Bernie. Yet again,I have this new home health aide, a friend of the really capable young woman who
left to join the army in order to get an education. This one, also originally from Jamaica, about
25 years old with a high school education, was listening to the part of Democracy Now yesterday
morning with me, in which Bernie Sanders made a statement about what he thinks is important, his
goals, what people should be concerned about. She asked me what his name is, and when I told her,
she said, "He's right. He knows what he's talking about". And he was talking about what
he always talks about, the right of working people to have a living wage, decent housing, good
health care. He was saying that we should use our tax dollars for that and not for war. To me,
that's what matters, that someone with no political knowledge or sophistication can hear and
respond to that message and perhaps vote for Sanders in the primaries, is important, not that he's
misusing a word.
Also, there really are different kinds of socialism. There's state socialistm.
But a small community of people living and working together according to
socialist principles is also socialism. A business co-operative, owned and
operated by the workers is socialism.
Donald Trump, the Koch Brothers, and all the other fossil fuel companies, as well as the
nuclear industry, want government to help them, and it does. It gives them subsidies. It
goes to war on their behalf. The young people on the left, with tongue in cheek, call
that, "socialism for the rich".
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 3:23 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Anatomy of Bernie Sanders’ socialism
Okay, if it isn't right to correct people when they try to express what they
mean then you should not have started this thread out by trying to correct the
author of the article when he explained why Bernie Sanders is not a socialist.
But if you want to just ignore the meanings of words like socialism then think
about this. If Donald Trump started calling himself a socialist without making
any other changes would you just accept that he was a socialist because he was
trying to express himself?
How about the Koch brothers? Would they be socialists if they decided to just
call themselves socialists? I certainly hope you would say no and if you say no
to that then you might want to reconsider accepting Bernie Sanders's claim to
be a socialist while he continues to defend and promote capitalism. Otherwise
we may as well start calling otters socialists or calling rocks socialists. If
you want to just ignore the meanings of words then maybe we should start
calling cyanide vanilla pudding. If someone dropped dead after tasting it then
that would be okay because it just doesn't matter what you call something. It's
just a way of expressing yourself.
___
Sam Harris
“ I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people
became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs. ”
― Sam Harris,
On 1/16/2020 9:33 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
I'm not having a debate with you about what words mean. Yes, certainly, words
have meaning. There are dictionary definitions and then there is the way that
they are used in academic discourse, and then there is popular useage. In
popular, everyday discourse, people tend not to follow the rules set down by
academics or grammarians or other experts. Amd I wasn't talking about what I
think socialism is. But I was saying that people use the word differently, and
they will continue to do so in order to try to communicate their ideas, and
since I think that we believe in freedom of thought and freedom of expression,
it isn't right to correct people when they're trying to express what they mean,
even if one doesn't think they're doing so accurately.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 11:59 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy]
Anatomy of Bernie Sanders’ socialism
Miriam, it is not my personal opinion. Words mean things and I can't help what
they mean. I had nothing to do with things becoming defined the way they are.
But if we are going to communicate with each other and convey our meanings it
behooves all of us to learn what things mean rather than to talk in vague
meaningless phrases. And let me point out something else. The phrase Marxist
theory has a meaning too. It covers a lot, but it still has meaning. Without
going into all the aspects of it, it means the process of analyzing social and
economic processes in the way that Karl Marx taught us to do, that is ,
scientifically. I will point out also that Marx did not invent science, so
Marxist theory is not entirely his either. But one thing it does not mean is
every post that I, personally, make. It is exasperating when you dismiss every
single post of mine as Marxist theory when it has nothing to do with Marxist
theory. I am also reminded of what you had to say about the Marxist definition
of fascism. There is no such thing as a Marxist definition of fascism. That is
because during Marx's entire lifetime there was no such thing as fascism. He
could not have defined it because it did not exist. It did not come into
existence until the twentieth century. It was defined by its founders and
proponents and a better understanding of it came about by analyzing the
conditions under which it took hold and how it developed in actual history.
When you started talking about the Marxist definition of fascism that was
basically the same thing you do when you call each and every post of mine
Marxist theory. Just because I was the one who was trying to explain what
fascism is you decided that I was talking about some nonexistent Marxist
definition. Nevertheless, it means something. Fascism has a rather broad
meaning too, but it is not broad enough to just mean someone you don't like.
When you just call anyone a fascist who you don't like you are going to have a
hard time talking about fascism when the real thing comes along. That practice
is just like using the word awesome to mean even the mildest approval. When you
do that what are you going to call it when something really awesome comes
along. Now I suppose you have the right to go ahead and use words that have
specific meanings without even knowing what those meanings are and I suppose
you have the right to just decide that everyone else is wrong except for
yourself, but when you do that you are only hurting your own ability to
communicate.
___
Sam Harris
“ I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people
became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs. ”
― Sam Harris,
On 1/15/2020 9:48 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
You are a very literal person. But many people have a different view. Remember
when Sylvie said something similar? You have a right to your opinion, and I
understand it. But it's your view, not shared by everyone else, and it's OK if
you privately think that everyone else is wrong.
Miriam.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 8:47 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Anatomy of
Bernie Sanders’ socialism
Nevertheless, if you defend and promote capitalism you are not a socialist and
if you defend and promote capitalism and call yourself a socialist you are
contributing to making the word meaningless. That is also what Carl is doing
when he calls every government program socialism. When you let a word mean
everything it means nothing.
___
Sam Harris
“ I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people
became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs. ”
― Sam Harris,
On 1/15/2020 3:15 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Clearly, most Americans who are talking about socialism, are not talking about
communism. They're not talking about socialism as defined in Marxist theory.
Their definitions vary. Of course, among the Marxists, definitions also vary
which is why there are Leninists, Trotskyites, and God knows what other groups.
At this point, given the military power of the US empire, the dangers of
nuclear war and environmental destruction due to global warming, it seems
imprudent to be worried about all of the theoretical distinctions. We may never
get to the point when it becomes necessary to sort them out. We need to stop
war, save the planet, and find some way of feeding everyone. We need to stop
countries from competing with each other for financial dominance in the world,
and we need to find a way of controlling big tech companies. If we keep arguing
with each other about which is the proper method for doing all this, rather
than working together and using all of the tools at our disposal, we won't
achieve any of our goals.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:57 PM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Anatomy of Bernie Sanders’ socialism
https://socialistaction.org/2020/01/14/anatomy-of-bernie-sanders-soc
i
alism/
Anatomy of Bernie Sanders’ socialism Socialist Action
/
24 hours ago
By NICK BAKER
A 2019 Pew Research Center poll of Americans’ political views found
that
42 percent support socialism, up from 31 percent found by Pew in 2010.
Fully half
of youth under 30 indicated their “positive or very positive impression”
of socialism. The biggest change that the new poll registered was
among those
30–49 years old, where 47 percent supported socialism today – up from 37
percent in 2010. Reporting the new figures with a bit of obfuscation in mind,
the Washington Post headline read “New Poll: Capitalism More Popular than
Socialism.” No doubt the Post editors, not to mention the corporate elite, were
a bit concerned!
Over the past decade we have seen the effects of modern capitalism operating
with full force, including its inability to provide decent, stable jobs, the
crushing debt it imposes on students and the broader population, lack of health
care, apocalyptic threat of climate change-induced destruction of the planet
and endless imperialist wars. Fully aware that sending already radicalizing
American youth to fight in unpopular wars around the world, the U.S. warmakers
increasingly resort to “quiet” wars, to drone wars, secret CIA wars,
privatized/mercenary army wars, proxy army wars, as well as sanction and trade
embargo wars. These are accompanied by record levels of corporate profit at the
expense of workers everywhere.
It’s no surprise that socialism is gaining in popularity in the face of this
blatant expression of capitalism’s inherent evils. But what exactly does
“socialism”
mean to people who are now turning their eyes to it? They often aren’t sure
exactly what socialism is, and the ruling class would like to keep it that way.
Last month, Pew published a follow-up report about the reasons given by the 42
percent who said they support socialism. The most popular reasons:
31 percent said socialism creates a fairer, more just society while 20 percent
said that it “builds on and improves capitalism,” with some indicating their
belief that the U.S. already had “some socialism” in the form of social welfare
programs. Others pointed to European “socialist” countries.
This kind of support for socialism, mixed with uncertainty about what exactly
socialism is beyond better and broader social programs, will no doubt be
exploited by the Democrats and Republicans, the two main parties of capitalism,
in the 2020 presidential campaign. Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth
Warren have already gotten the message. At a time when socialist ideas are
gaining prominence, the Democratic Party, the historic “graveyard of social
movements,” will once again aim to round up the disillusioned and disaffected
with pledges of fealty to justice and fair play. While never neglecting to
assert that their personal candidacy is the only surefire alternative to their
incomparably evil Republican opponent, the corporate admission price exacted
from all players in this “lesser evil” charade is an unconditional pledge in
advance to support whichever Democrat emerges on top of the heap at the end of
the primary process. Returning or delivering the disillusioned back into the
fold of capitalist politics—a dead end for the working class that promises
nothing but continued suffering—is the prime objective of the $8-9 billion
election time operation underway today.
After the unexpected 2016 election defeat of Hillary Clinton, the Democrats
have the Bernie Sanders campaign once again taking the temperature of the
masses while providing an outlet to express their frustrations with the
Democratic Party and the Obama administration for presiding over the jailing
and torture of immigrants, the ongoing Afghanistan war of 18 years and the
suffering during the Great Recession where the bankers, insurance companies and
major corporation were bailed out to the tune of $32 trillion while mortgage
foreclosures reached modern time highs. Former Republican and corporate
attorney Elizabeth Warren has joined the field being posed as a progressive
technocrat, while Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg are assigned the role of safe
centrist stalking horses.
The Sanders campaign has a clear message: the barrier to “socialism” is the
“Democratic Party establishment,” not the capitalist class. Working people can
“take back” the Democratic Party, according to Sanders – as if it were ever
ours – and make it a vehicle for socialism that fights for the interests of
the working class!
But this can never be. The Democratic Party is the institutional expression of
a wing of the capitalist class, and is inherently opposed to the interests of
working people. Its only “base” is that section of the capitalist class whose
method for disciplining and controlling the workers is, at this time, to tell
them that their concerns are valid and need to be addressed, all the while
ensuring that these concerns are channeled away from independent mass protests
in the streets and away from the formation of independent working
class-controlled organizations and parties.
Sanders’ campaign proposals
Bernie Sanders’ supporters write articles with socialist-sounding titles like
“Bernie Wants You to Own More of the Means of Production.” Real workers’
direct ownership and control of the means of production is at the core of
revolutionary socialism—that is, Marxism. Its achievement requires the
abolition of the capitalist system of private ownership and its associated
exploitation of workers to ensure capitalist profit. Headlines like Sanders’
supporters employ are no accident. Offered as an “electoral road to socialism”
and perhaps as a Marxist-oriented government, like his “political revolution,”
they are aimed directly at people interested in socialism. But when it comes to
“owning more of the means of production,” what does Sanders mean?
That headline referred to what Sanders calls his “Corporate Accountability and
Democracy” plan, which he says will shift society’s wealth “back into the hands
of the workers who create it.” In this plan, companies that record more than
$100 million in revenue a year or are publicly traded would gradually transfer
20 percent of their stock into a trust held for the workers that pays dividends
and provides voting rights at shareholder meetings.
According
to Sanders’ campaign estimate, this would provide an average dividend to all
workers of $5000 per year. Not nothing for workers whose wages have been
declining for decades, but a far cry from owning the means of production.
In the same plan, Sanders promotes limiting executive pay to merely 150 times
that of the average worker. CEO’s currently make 278 times what the average
worker earns, so 150 is certainly less—but it’s also a far cry from socialism.
In 1965, CEOs made 20 times the average worker’s salary!
Sanders’ figure
of 150 times would be a return to mid-1990’s levels of CEO pay. In other words,
the workers create the wealth and the CEOs should benefit 150 times more—only a
modest amount.
The way Sanders proposes to promote this policy is telling as well – by
penalizing companies that pay executives above that level by disfavoring them
in the provisioning of federal contracts. That is, he poses his plan as a
market-based reform, to be contested in the arena of the market, where the
capitalist reigns supreme.
This isn’t socialism. It’s a light reform of the most obnoxious excesses of
modern capitalism in the past few decades, totally acceptable to the boss class
and especially so when it allows for the pretense of restricting them without
disturbing in any way their right to lord over the workers.
Sanders’ plan for the military
Sanders, who voted for the largest military budgets in history during the Obama
administration, today says he will ask Congress to “take a hard look at the
military budget” and “try to pare it down.” He frequently says that the U.S.
should not spend more on its military than the next 10 countries combined but
declines to say anything more concrete about the military budget.
These days asserting that the U.S. military budget should be cut at all sounds
radical – but only because the preposterous profit-fueling growth of military
spending has reached such incredible levels.
U.S. military spending has grown over 75 percent in the last 20
years – nearly doubling. And indeed it is more than the next ten
countries combined. Including the hundreds of billions each year in
the secret “black budget” and the CIA’s largely secret expenditures,
total annual U.S. military expenditures exceed
$1 trillion. After a 20 percent cut, the U.S. would spend more on the military
than the next seven countries combined. Even after a 50 percent cut the figure
would be far more than any other country in the world—and would only be
slightly less than the war budgets of the Clinton administration.
No self-respecting Democrat would ever propose any kind of substantial cut to
the most profitable business on the planet Earth. Anyone who even thought such
a thing would be laughed out of the Democratic Party. Here again, Sanders only
proposes to mildly pare back the absurdities of the last couple decades, to put
American imperialist capitalism on a stronger footing by making it appear able
to fix itself—without any fix involved.
Green New Deal
Not even under his Green New Deal plan does Sanders say anything about cutting
the military, even though the U.S. military is the world’s largest polluter.
Any plan that does not begin with eliminating the world’s largest polluter is a
farce. Sanders talks a lot about “taking on” the fossil fuel companies.
His Green New Deal plan says repeatedly that he will “end the fossil fuel
industry’s greed.” How does he plan to do it? By nationalizing the energy
industry and removing the profit motive? Of course not. The main thrust of
Sanders’ plan is the introduction of strong regulations and market-based
reforms that will supposedly force the fossil fuel industry to convert itself
to green energy.
But the real con in Sanders’ rhetoric is the idea that the Democratic Party, a
party of the ruling class capitalist elites, has any interest in ending the use
of fossil fuels. There are 1.73 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves in the
world today, and capitalism is incapable of doing anything but using its
already existing rigs and drills to get it out of the ground and turn it into
profit.
The U.S. is the world’s largest oil producer (17.94 million barrels per day, 18
percent of the world’s total production) and largest oil consumer (19.69
million barrels per day, 20 percent of total consumption—more than the next
two, China and India, combined). The U.S. is the world’s largest natural gas
producer and also has the largest oil refining capacity of any country.
All of these facts led the head of the International Energy Agency
in
2018 to project
that the U.S. will be the “undisputed global gas and oil leader” for
decades. Readers will forgive our irony in noting that this top
official declined to add that a Sanders election victory in 2020
would render his estimates inaccurate. In truth, Sanders’ much
touted Green New Deal pledge to allocate
$16.3 trillion over the course of ten years to save the U.S., not to mention
the earth itself, from climate Armageddon, is sheer bluster and bluff, unless,
of course, he contemplates the abolition of capitalism itself, a proposition as
absurd as the rest of his “socialist” hoopla.
Much of U.S. warfare and trade policy is dedicated to securing
control of oil in the countries with the largest proven reserves,
such as Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Both Democrats and
Republicans have dutifully refused to commit to any binding climate
goals that might present even the smallest threat to the
mega-profits of the fossil-fuel companies. The Obama administration
ensured that the Paris Climate Agreement was non-binding and
therefore meaningless, while overseeing the largest growth of fracking in U.S.
history, making the U.S. the world’s greatest fracker. Since the
Paris Climate Accords in 2015,
30 major banks have invested $1.9 trillion in fossil fuel companies, knowing
that their investment was more than safe.
Working-class politics: the only way
Millions of people in the United States are recognizing that capitalism is at
the heart of the problems that they face every day and see around the world.
They believe that socialism would make things better, but they aren’t exactly
sure what makes socialism different from capitalism. Some think of it as just a
nicer form of capitalism.
The purpose of the Sanders campaign is to bring the confused and disaffected
back into the embrace of the Democratic Party. Sanders is no socialist. He’s
for keeping the ruling class in power through the Democratic Party and
maintaining the means of production safely in the hands of the capitalists –
while fostering illusions of real change to make the workers feel a little
better about the whole thing in the hopes that they won’t cause any trouble.
In sharp contrast to Bernie Sanders and the whole range of today’s posturing
Democratic Party contenders, the goals of socialists and the means to achieve
them are fundamentally at odds with the rapacious capitalist system itself – a
system of war, racism, sexism, LGBTQI discrimination, environmental
destruction, and the ceaseless exploitation of human beings for the profit of
the few.
That is why socialists fight for working-class opposition to and independence
from all the institutional forms of ruling class rule, beginning with their
twin parties. The only way forward to a just society – a truly socialist
society – is to win ownership and control of society’s wealth by the
revolutionary action of the working class itself. The prerequisite to achieving
this is the construction of a mass revolutionary socialist party fully
inclusive of the best fighters who have won the respect and confidence of the
vast working-class majority.
If working people who consider themselves socialists are convinced to support
Sanders based on the words he utters rather than the class interests of the
party he represents, they will inevitably be disappointed with the end result –
yet another capitalist politician in power regardless of party, personality,
and populist-sounding rhetoric. On the other hand, if the present broad
interest in socialist ideas finds expression in serious fighters for a better
world, they will in time find their way to Socialist Action. Join us!
Share:
list of 3 items
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook
(Opens in new window) Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
list end January 14, 2020
in
Uncategorized.
article end
Related posts
article
05/may-2016-sanders
Sanders, socialism and the U.S. left in crisis article end article
06/june-2016-grumpy-bernie
Bernie Sanders’ demise: What are the lessons?
article end
article
dreamers-of-the-world-unite
Dreamers of the world, unite!
article end
navigation region
Post navigation
← The Trump impeachment charade
navigation region end
main region end
Search for articles
Search
Get Involved!
list of 3 items
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
list end
Social Media
list of 2 items
View socialistactionusa’s profile on Facebook View
SocialistActUS’s profile on Twitter list end
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
04/paper
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives
Select Month
Upcoming Events
No upcoming events
Create a website or blog at WordPress.com list of 1 items Follow
list end
:)
