submitted 2 weeks ago by Vernon_Tennessee@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 17 points 2 weeks ago

Bernie could have been a second FDR. He wasn't Lenin but he could have done a lot of good for a lot of people.

Of course now we know unfortunately our succdem grandpa is kind of a wimp. But we didn't know that in 2016.

[-] Big_Bob@hexbear.net 11 points 2 weeks ago

I highly, HIGHLY, doubt Bernie would be able to do anything. The levers of power in the western world are 100% in the hands of capital, with no real leftist movement to pose a threat to the ruling powers to influence anything.

Even back then, it was obvious for anyone who had read some basic Lenin.

Bernie's function was to coalesce all the strands of semi-leftist movements and strangle them in the crib.

[-] CarmineCatboy2@hexbear.net 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I highly, HIGHLY, doubt Bernie would be able to do anything. The levers of power in the western world are 100% in the hands of capital, with no real leftist movement to pose a threat to the ruling powers to influence anything.

Which is why they said Bernie could be the next FDR. A capitalist president. The guy who was in charge when american capitalism was saved by a combination of minimal planning, war and the new deal tackling a few of the worst contradictions found in the economic model. Sanders would have never been Lenin. He would, at best, been a guy who enacted capitalist policies that do not entail removing the copper wiring from the walls.

You can make an argument that american capitalism has developed into a financialized phase that makes it all impossible. That american industrial policy is too invested in financial bubbles and pretending that the government doesn't do industrial policy (it does, but just for Raytheon, Big Tech and Tesla). But that's a different argument from saying that Bernie was not revolutionary. Rather, you're claiming that the USA's leeway within the framework of capitalism is too limited even for an FDR.