2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Venom said:
I stopped at the nonsense figures from the Black Book of Communism or whatever ******** it's called.

Perhaps Sanders was once a Marxist, but Marxism isn't all doom and violent revolution and there's nothing to indicate he wants to implement it anyway. If he ever was, he's softened his stance into democratic socialism instead of a revolutionary socialism.
Click to expand...

Besides, in the context of the times, Marx (and Engels) saw an unfolding narrative that needed steering towards an outcome, which stood in stark contrast to other groups who wanted to (and did) assassinate Tsars with crude explosive devices and eternally agitate for a mass uprising of peasantry. Peasantry who, mind you, had no interest in opposing their great and god-ordained Tsars (with both histori-cultural and practical reality reasons for their feeling that way).

ETA: Ninja'd by Venom while I was daydreaming for an hour

Also, credit to Mike Duncan's "Revolutions" podcast (current series is on Russia with maaaaaajor back-context still ongoing) who I've been catching up with and in the latest few episodes I heard, had just dissected some major differences in 5 or 6 different undercurrents of reform. Until now, I thought the Bolsheviks and the way they were stabbed in the back was the interesting bit about all this...oh lord it's complex and I'm only entering late 19th C.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
There's also the shortages, the doped up Olympic athletes, the state-run media...
Click to expand...

Interesting. Yet again, the sins of totalitarianism and oligarchy and the corruption that they promote are blamed on Marxism, nevermind that the people doing such aren't even remotely following the actual teachings of Marx.

There are a number of things worth poking at when it comes to Marx and the ideas he promoted, but seriously, stop trying to let totalitarianism and oligarchy off the hook for their sins!
 
Bernie tends to keep a tight lid on explicitly bringing up the S-word.
It's just that the press can't help baiting him on it. And I don't really like the way he typically answers them.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders admires Karl Marx. I highly doubt he would agree with the various interpretations and applications of Marxist-Leninist thought around the world.
 
Venom said:
Bernie tends to keep a tight lid on explicitly bringing up the S-word.
It's just that the press can't help baiting him on it. And I don't really like the way he typically answers them.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders admires Karl Marx. I highly doubt he would agree with the various interpretations and applications of Marxist-Leninist thought around the world.
Click to expand...

The core ideas in Marx of worker alienation from the fruits of their labour are worth exploring. He is going to get labeled a socialist or a Marxist because these are lazy scare words that are easier to wield against him than engaging with his ideas, which are about fairness and empowerment ordinary Americans.
 
Curious to see if mainstream dems actually mean it when they say "vote blue no matter who".

Party loyalty has often been the cudgel they used on progressives disappointed that the primary produced a centrist liberal candidate. It should be noted that Sanders himself, after losing to Hillary, very much advocated for the party.

Should Sanders start securing some early victories, I am curious if main-streamers will reveal themselves to be hypocrites.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Curious to see if mainstream dems actually mean it when they say "vote blue no matter who".

Party loyalty has often been the cudgel they used on progressives disappointed that the primary produced a centrist liberal candidate. It should be noted that Sanders himself, after losing to Hillary, very much advocated for the party.

Should Sanders start securing some early victories, I am curious if main-streamers will reveal themselves to be hypocrites.
Click to expand...
That hypocrisy cannot be revealed (if there) until the General Election, though, can it?

Simply supporting a different candidate for the nomination is not the same thing as "voting red", no matter how popular that candidate might be within the party.
 
Ziggurat said:
There's also the shortages, the doped up Olympic athletes, the state-run media...
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Distracted1 said:
That hypocrisy cannot be revealed (if there) until the General Election, though, can it?

Simply supporting a different candidate for the nomination is not the same thing as "voting red", no matter how popular that candidate might be within the party.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. You could have people not in the race, say Hillary or Obama, coming out with stronger statements saying that Sanders cannot be supported, no matter what.

During the primary, there is always the hypothetical question asked "would you endorse whoever wins". If Sanders takes an early lead, the response to that question may change. It's one thing to support another candidate, it's another to have an explicitly "never Sanders" stance.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Perhaps. You could have people not in the race, say Hillary or Obama, coming out with stronger statements saying that Sanders cannot be supported, no matter what.

During the primary, there is always the hypothetical question asked "would you endorse whoever wins". If Sanders takes an early lead, the response to that question may change. It's one thing to support another candidate, it's another to have an explicitly "never Sanders" stance.
Click to expand...

I would say prominent Dems coming out is support of someone like Bloomberg running 3rd party when he drops out.
 
In some cases, yes. But really, when the corporations that are pushing it also run the government, you are making a distinction without a difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom