Alright no hate on Bernie tho, that dude is a role model through and through.
Bernie is basically a modern day version of Bernstein. Though a century apart, both peddle reformism as a political pacifier, diverting energy from the radical systemic change required to dismantle capitalism. Their approaches, while superficially progressive, function as ideological traps, diverting energy from serious movements necessary to upend capitalism.
Bernstein was a leading figure in Germanyās SPD, and he famously rejected Marxist revolutionary praxis in favor of evolutionary socialism. He argued capitalism could be gradually reformed into socialism through parliamentary means, dismissing the inevitability of class conflict. He neutralized the SPDās revolutionary potential, channeling working-class demands into compromises like wage increases or limited welfare programs that left capitalist hierarchies intact. As Rosa Luxemburg warned in Reform or Revolution, Bernsteinās strategy reduced socialism to a āmild appendageā of liberalism, sapping the working class of its transformative agency.
Likewise, the political project that Bernie pursued mirrors Bernsteinās trajectory. While Sanders critiques inequality and corporate power, his platform centers on social democratic reforms, such as Medicare for All, tuition-free college, a $15 minimum wage, that treat symptoms instead of root causes. By framing electoral victory as the primary objective, Sanders diverted a what could have been a millions strong grassroots movement into the Democratic Party, an institution structurally committed to maintaining capitalism. His campaigns absorbed activist energy into phone banking and voter outreach, rather than building durable, extra-parliamentary power such as workplace organizations, tenant unions, and so on.
When Sanders conceded to Hillary Clinton and later Joe Biden, his base dissolved into disillusionment or shifted focus to lesser-evilism. Without autonomous structures to sustain pressure, the movementās momentum evaporated similarly to how the SPD was integrated into Weimar Germanyās capitalist state. However, even if his agenda were enacted, it would exist within a neoliberal framework. Much like FDRās New Deal coexisted with Jim Crow, imperial plunder, and union busting. Reforms within the system are always contingent on their utility to capital, and their purpose is demobilize the workers.
A meaningful challenge to capitalism requires a long-term strategy that combines direct action, mass education, and dual power structures. Imagine if Sanders had urged supporters to unionize workplaces, organize rent strikes, and create community mutual aid networks alongside electoral engagement. Movements like MAS in Bolivia, show how grassroots power can pressure institutions while cultivating revolutionary consciousness. Instead, his campaign became a referendum on his candidacy, leaving his followers adrift after his defeat.
Bernstein and Sanders, despite their intentions, exemplify the dead end of reformism. Their projects mistake tactical concessions for strategic victory, ignoring capitalismās relentless drive to commodify and co-opt. In the end, the reformist approach ends up midwifing full blown fascism. By channeling energy into parliamentary politics, the SPD deprioritized mass mobilization. Unions and workers were encouraged to seek concessions rather than challenge capitalist power structures. This eroded class consciousness and left the working class unprepared to confront the nazi threat.
When the nazis gained momentum, the SPD clung to legalistic strategies, refusing to support strikes or armed resistance against Hitler. Their faith in bourgeois democracy blinded them to the existential threat of fascism, which exploited economic despair and nationalist resentment. In the end, SPD famously allied with the nazis against the communists.
The āprogressiveā wing of the Democratic Party is following in the footsteps of the SPDās reformist trajectory. While advocating for policies like Medicare for All or climate action, it operates within capitalist constraints, undermining radical change and inadvertently fueling right-wing extremism. The Democrats absorb grassroots energy into electoral campaigns while their reliance on corporate donors ensures watered-down policies that fuel disillusionment.
The SPDās reformism actively enabled fascism by disorganizing the working class and legitimizing capitalist violence. Similarly, the Democratic Partyās commitment to pragmatic incrementalism sustains a system that breeds reactionary backlash. Trump is a direct product of these policies. Weāre just watching history on repeat here.
Bernie has been pretty shitty on foreign policy. He supported the NATO bombing of Belgrade for 78 straight days, which is why he fell out of favor with his socialist friend, Michael Parenti. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLNQEHbusSA&t=39s
Maybe for those who wish to support bombing foreigners while funnelling the military industry into their state.
Motherfucker parades around like heās antiwar because he voted ānayā on a single ballot initiative that was already a shoo-in and inconsequential for him to vote against. Literally a couple months later, he voted to further the funding for those military actions.
Bernie has had blood on his hands for 30-40 years now and continues to try to wash it off with more blood.
Someone who pretends to support the poor at home while simultaneously supporting bombing and invading the poor elsewhere sure is a role model, just not a good one.
Continued to support Democrats after they fucked him in the 2016 primary, Iām guessing?
I donāt know, I still like him
leftist : anti-capitalism :: liberal : pro-capitalism
Why is this so hard for some radlibs to understand? I think it is all the propaganda they passively consume.
Capitalism is so all-consuming itās like water to fish. āCapitalismā becomes synonymous with words like economy, markets, trade, laws, and government. It no longer is an ideology, but an immutable force in the universe.
Iāll say it again, in the United States the term āliberalā is used to refer to liberal social ideas NOT liberal economic ideas. To the average US citizen left and liberal are synonyms. This doesnāt mean your definition isnāt correct for academics and the entire rest of the world. But this meme, and this left vs liberal argument for this post, are US based.
We know that, which is why weāre trying to deprogram Americans from the Orwellian newspeak theyāve been mistaught so they can develop class consciousness.
Iām not sure how colloquial vocabulary usage prevents developing class consciousness. Iād potentially argue refusing to accept the evolution of language and refusing to communicate to people in the terms they use and understand inhibits said deprogramming.
Again very US centric in this definition but itās who needs deprogramming.
This is also wrong. US liberals are just as anticommunist as their further right counterparts, and their āsocial liberalismā goes only so far as not to infringe on capitalist āfreedomā to do whatever they can get away with. Hence their hatred of homeless / the poor, communists, and colonized peoples.
As the saying goes, US liberals are against every genocide except the current one. Hence their staunch support for Israelās genocide of Palestinians.
Isnāt it progressism?
But anyway liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. The artificial differences created between conservatives and progressists is just a smoke screen to create a false debate and prevent from challenging capitalism, switching the enemy from the rulling capitalist class to the person next door with different views
This is American Exceptionalism, and I wonāt stand for it. This is like that āthey trained them wrong on purpose ā¦ as a jokeā meme. The ruling class has subdued many people with a maelstrom of bullshit politics, and the only sound strategy is to shatter these exceptionalist brain worms and actually do real analysis of the political economy.
Yes, itās hard for them to understand because of a lifetime of anti-socialist & pro-capitalist propaganda, propaganda which most of them arenāt even aware of, because for them itās just common sense.
Nope, Liberalism is the ācenterā of the modern world in that itās the default status quo position and ideology of the ruling class.
Liberalism means PRO CAPITALISM.
The first sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism:
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law.
From the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_propertyā :
Private property is foundational to capitalism, an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
Liberalism: A Counter-History (online copy)
ā Not to be confused with personal property.
That line says nothing about capitalism. Pro ownership? That is a tenet of some branches of leftism. I dont agree with corporations or the state having a monopoly on land ownership. Though the government cant come and take an individuals shit for no reason. Being an abusive billionaire though has an asterisk in the foot notes.
Though Iād argue that anyone owning shit comes a large and wide second or 3rd to human rights.
philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed
It says it right there.
Liberal means pro capitalist liberty. Nothing about personal freedom, equity and social safety nets in that.
based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed
Okay buddy. You guys just want to twist a good ideology into a wedge issue. The only thing vaguely ācapitalistā about a liberal is the belief that the government isnt allowed to seize your shit unlawfully. The right to own property comes way after personal liberty in my book. That means billionaires dont get a pass for abusing the populace.
Of course. Its the ālibertyā of capitalists do to whatever they can get away with. Unlimited power for the capitalist class.
The right side is just liberalism. This is what happens when the left and liberal are melded together in everyday western society/language and the water is muddied. Itās intended. It confuses people, overwhelms them, and leads them to use the apparatus that the ruling class has placed in front of us to circumvent true working class interests and movements. Itās why liberals scoff at potential allies (leftists), instead of seeing the truth: a unified working class.
There two sides.
1% and their zombies
The rest of us.
Letās not split up and weaken. šŖ
Itās always the people who say āIām a hardcore leftistā or āIām as left as they comeā
New bit idea: tell people youāre āas left as they cum,ā and always cum facing your left.