Welcome to this week’s discussion of Bernie Sanders’s new book, “It’s Okay to be Angry About Capitalism.” You don’t have to have read the book to participate, as I’ll be pulling out themes and topics for us to discuss.
For this discussion, I’d like to hear your thoughts on Bernie Sanders’s strategy of attempting to get Socialist politics into the American mainstream without using the word “Socialism.”
Throughout the book, Bernie and his co-writer John Nichols employ this two-pronged strategy:
Identify a problem, such as the country’s expensive and inadequate health care, then describe the source of the problem as “Uber-Capitalism.”
Provide a Socialist (or Social Democratic) solution to the problem, such as Medicare-For-All or a National Health Service.
It is the authors’ choice to add the modifier “Uber” to the “Uber-Capitalism” which I find interesting. Like his politicking, Bernie doesn’t say “Capitalism is the problem,” as he doesn’t want to risk alienating potential supporters who have been ingrained by American culture that “Capitalism = Good, Socialism = Bad.” So, he adds the “Uber” to allow his messages to resonate with readers who might not be ready to accept that the underlying structure of our economy is the cause of our problems. (This is of course my thought on why he doesn’t directly blame Capitalism, but I know others think differently.)
My question for you is:
If you want to promote the same policies as Bernie, such as Medicare-For-All, robust social insurance, etc., etc., do you think the ‘Trojan Horse’ strategy of not explicitly blaming Capitalism is the right approach? Or, should we on the Left be clear that Capitalism is the problem and we need to change it? Why or why not?
Share your thoughts in the comments. I look forward to hearing what you think!
I think that there is to some degree, but I also think that we have to start somewhere. Sort of easing into the word. I have a number of family members who identify as conservative, but when they express political ideas, some of their ideas are not at all conservative ones. I think that they find comfort in the label, but are not well educated in political ideas. I don't think that that's rare here in the US.
That's very true. People put way too much stock into labels. I've always felt that was a consequence of the two-party system, as you're incentivized to "pick a side," not all that different from a sports team.
One of the reasons I started this publication was because I wanted to explain the realities of Socialism and Capitalism, without the baggage carried by the labels. I think introducing the content of a platform first, then using a label is the optimal way. At least in my experience.
I think that addressing it head on his the better approach. I don't prefer the Trojan method as it reeks of reformism to me. I personally think Bernie is a reformist, because isn't that basically all social democracy is? But reformism is not socialism. You can also bring up anti capitalist talking points without mentioning Socialism. One Youtuber who I especially like is Matt Bruening. He has a recent video where he talks about corporate work structures. One thing that I think can really resonate with alot of people is by addressing the structure of the workplace. Why do we just openly accept that there needs to be dictator in the workplace for instance? Socialism as economic and workplace liberty, freedom or autonomy I think is something that really would really click with lots of people, they just have to be sold on it and deprogramed from capitalist brain rot.
Personally, I tend to find the politics Bernie espouses to be socially democratic, but I do think he himself is a socialist. I get the sense from his works (including this book) that he made a decision a long time ago to get what he thought was possible, which is socially democratic programs like M4A, free college, etc.. Of course, this comes with the tradeoff of foregoing directly calling out the problem of Capitalism and the solution of Socialism, which I assume he thought was too extreme for the American public.
I think this was probably a good approach 20 years ago, but now that so many people are becoming frustrated with the Capitalist mode of production, I think it's time to start explicitly saying, "Capitalism is causing your problems. Socialism can help." And I think Bernie would be a good messenger for that, so I'd like to see him start using explicit terms.
I get the sense that was one of his motivators to right this book. Though I would have liked more explicitness on the terms, he does advocate a lot for worker ownership of the means of production, though he doesn't call it that.
I would imagine he knows he's old and will likely step back from the spotlight, so this book is his swan song.
Yeah, I haven't read this most recent book i dont know if he does so in
it but have never heard him say anything as explict asworker ownership of the means of production. Don't get me wrong I think that Bernie is great, I do think that he is an actual socialist secretly and maybe even a Marxist but he just realizes that he can't say that due to his postion, and I get that.
I think it's super important to take the approach that Bernie has taken here. Unfortunately, there are so many people that hear the word socialism and immediately start thinking of communism. I don't believe that most people are aware of what that means either, it just sounds scary to them.
This is a real concern, but I would pushback on the idea that means we shouldn't use these terms at all. After all, how can we correct people's misconception if we don't address them head on? Do you think there's an appetite in the US to start learning what Socialism actually is?
I think the history of socialism and communism their understsnding have been so demonized and also just obfuscated or garbled by at this point especially by the media that it's something that average American doesn't even know they would like or are looking for as a solution to the problems of capitalism. Semi related to the trojan horse thing in a sense, I do think socialism may have to go through a rebranding period just to avoid negative connotations with Americans especially. In the Matt Bruening video I mentioned in another comment he calls it something like corporate governance structure or whatever for instance. The channels Second Thought is also good at getting normal people on board in the same vain.
I've thought about this as well. I think the idea of: "your workplace is a autocracy, but it should be a democracy" is a very powerful way to get the effects of Socialism into the mainstream.
In my experience, I think the biggest problem of getting people to support Socialism isn't that they don't understand Socialism, but they don't understand Capitalism! I believe the Left can make a lot of gains by simply explaining the anti-democratic nature of Capitalism.
Oh it certainly is the case that people don't understand capitalism for sure. Usually they just equate it with freedom and think of all the freedom they will lose if we move to socialism as opposed to the freedoms they will gain. One thing that I never realized until recently was how much the average worker is almost programed to think of things from the perspective of the capitalist or the capitalist class that hurt the working class and yet frame it as if it is in the workers own class interest. There are a million examples, but something like, supply side economics, people will say well you have to do that because otherwise the business owner will not be able to create jobs if he doesn't have super low taxes. You dont get a job from a poor person. Or, of course we have to bail out the banks
or we all lose. Or just making excuses for things perpetuated by the capitalist class at the expense of the workers. Drives me nuts. I suppose this would lead into a discussion of cultural hegemony of sorts. Workers really need to claim back their power.
Apr 11, 2023·edited Apr 11, 2023Liked by Joe Mayall
I am presently about 1/4 through the book and not certain who the audience is... I get that it's going to be a 'Bernie book' and there's going to be folksy and anecdotal sections, especially as a means to introduce & structure the content, but I'm disappointed that there is SO much biography vs more straight forward policy. Not certain if it will reach a new audience rather than preach to the converted but I'll reserve judgement until I finish.
I felt the same way, though I can say it gets more policy-focused than just "my story." The beginning reads like a typical political memoir, which I imagine the publishing companies want for whatever reason. (I'm assuming this because it's the format of EVERY politicians' book, lol).
Putting aside losing Presidential bids, do you think he would have been as successful at bolstering his political movement if he used the terms "Socialist" and "Capitalist"?
https://birrion.substack.com/p/its-ok-to-be-angry-about-bernie-sanders I address this here, Bernie's reformist approach is not helpful. It's capitalism, not uber-capitalism, and it's socialism that we need to replace it. Bernie doesn't argue for replacing capitalism according to the CNN article he shared.
I'll dive into your article in full, but do you think that's part of a strategy? I'm also curious why you think the "don't say Socialism" approach is unhelpful. That was his approach in 2016 and 2020, and despite losing, they both opened many people's eyes to the potential of Left politics.
"“Now, we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman and child in our country basic economic rights – the right to quality health care, the right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society, the right to a good job that pays a living wage, the right to affordable housing, the right to a secure retirement, and the right to live in a clean environment.
We must recognize that in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights. That is what I mean by democratic socialism.” - Bernie Sanders, 2019.
He has no problem saying "socialism" but he doesn't actually mean it, which results in a lot of people confused by what socialism is.
There's no doubt that the Bernie campaigns helped open people's eyes to the inequalities of the system and the potential of left politics. But his framing of socialism was not helpful to building an actual socialist movement. If you're going to say socialism, mean it.
I think you're spot on. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, but I think there is a large portion of Americans who are open to democratic socialism/social democracy/anti-capitalism, whatever it may be, but they just don't even know it exists.
IMO, a big portion of that is how our society "declared victory" over socialism with the fall of the Soviet Union.
I think that there is to some degree, but I also think that we have to start somewhere. Sort of easing into the word. I have a number of family members who identify as conservative, but when they express political ideas, some of their ideas are not at all conservative ones. I think that they find comfort in the label, but are not well educated in political ideas. I don't think that that's rare here in the US.
That's very true. People put way too much stock into labels. I've always felt that was a consequence of the two-party system, as you're incentivized to "pick a side," not all that different from a sports team.
One of the reasons I started this publication was because I wanted to explain the realities of Socialism and Capitalism, without the baggage carried by the labels. I think introducing the content of a platform first, then using a label is the optimal way. At least in my experience.
I think that addressing it head on his the better approach. I don't prefer the Trojan method as it reeks of reformism to me. I personally think Bernie is a reformist, because isn't that basically all social democracy is? But reformism is not socialism. You can also bring up anti capitalist talking points without mentioning Socialism. One Youtuber who I especially like is Matt Bruening. He has a recent video where he talks about corporate work structures. One thing that I think can really resonate with alot of people is by addressing the structure of the workplace. Why do we just openly accept that there needs to be dictator in the workplace for instance? Socialism as economic and workplace liberty, freedom or autonomy I think is something that really would really click with lots of people, they just have to be sold on it and deprogramed from capitalist brain rot.
Personally, I tend to find the politics Bernie espouses to be socially democratic, but I do think he himself is a socialist. I get the sense from his works (including this book) that he made a decision a long time ago to get what he thought was possible, which is socially democratic programs like M4A, free college, etc.. Of course, this comes with the tradeoff of foregoing directly calling out the problem of Capitalism and the solution of Socialism, which I assume he thought was too extreme for the American public.
I think this was probably a good approach 20 years ago, but now that so many people are becoming frustrated with the Capitalist mode of production, I think it's time to start explicitly saying, "Capitalism is causing your problems. Socialism can help." And I think Bernie would be a good messenger for that, so I'd like to see him start using explicit terms.
I totally agree especially as he is coming closer to end of his life he really has nothing to lose at this point.
I get the sense that was one of his motivators to right this book. Though I would have liked more explicitness on the terms, he does advocate a lot for worker ownership of the means of production, though he doesn't call it that.
I would imagine he knows he's old and will likely step back from the spotlight, so this book is his swan song.
Yeah, I haven't read this most recent book i dont know if he does so in
it but have never heard him say anything as explict asworker ownership of the means of production. Don't get me wrong I think that Bernie is great, I do think that he is an actual socialist secretly and maybe even a Marxist but he just realizes that he can't say that due to his postion, and I get that.
I think it's super important to take the approach that Bernie has taken here. Unfortunately, there are so many people that hear the word socialism and immediately start thinking of communism. I don't believe that most people are aware of what that means either, it just sounds scary to them.
This is a real concern, but I would pushback on the idea that means we shouldn't use these terms at all. After all, how can we correct people's misconception if we don't address them head on? Do you think there's an appetite in the US to start learning what Socialism actually is?
I think the history of socialism and communism their understsnding have been so demonized and also just obfuscated or garbled by at this point especially by the media that it's something that average American doesn't even know they would like or are looking for as a solution to the problems of capitalism. Semi related to the trojan horse thing in a sense, I do think socialism may have to go through a rebranding period just to avoid negative connotations with Americans especially. In the Matt Bruening video I mentioned in another comment he calls it something like corporate governance structure or whatever for instance. The channels Second Thought is also good at getting normal people on board in the same vain.
I've thought about this as well. I think the idea of: "your workplace is a autocracy, but it should be a democracy" is a very powerful way to get the effects of Socialism into the mainstream.
In my experience, I think the biggest problem of getting people to support Socialism isn't that they don't understand Socialism, but they don't understand Capitalism! I believe the Left can make a lot of gains by simply explaining the anti-democratic nature of Capitalism.
Oh it certainly is the case that people don't understand capitalism for sure. Usually they just equate it with freedom and think of all the freedom they will lose if we move to socialism as opposed to the freedoms they will gain. One thing that I never realized until recently was how much the average worker is almost programed to think of things from the perspective of the capitalist or the capitalist class that hurt the working class and yet frame it as if it is in the workers own class interest. There are a million examples, but something like, supply side economics, people will say well you have to do that because otherwise the business owner will not be able to create jobs if he doesn't have super low taxes. You dont get a job from a poor person. Or, of course we have to bail out the banks
or we all lose. Or just making excuses for things perpetuated by the capitalist class at the expense of the workers. Drives me nuts. I suppose this would lead into a discussion of cultural hegemony of sorts. Workers really need to claim back their power.
It puts me up a wall when workers espouse the trickle-down stuff! We Leftists need to do better reaching them before the Right Wing does.
I am presently about 1/4 through the book and not certain who the audience is... I get that it's going to be a 'Bernie book' and there's going to be folksy and anecdotal sections, especially as a means to introduce & structure the content, but I'm disappointed that there is SO much biography vs more straight forward policy. Not certain if it will reach a new audience rather than preach to the converted but I'll reserve judgement until I finish.
I felt the same way, though I can say it gets more policy-focused than just "my story." The beginning reads like a typical political memoir, which I imagine the publishing companies want for whatever reason. (I'm assuming this because it's the format of EVERY politicians' book, lol).
Address it head on. State what you believe and defend it.
There's validity to that. Do you think Bernie would have been as successful if that had been his approach from day one?
No. Bernie would have lost whatever he did.
Putting aside losing Presidential bids, do you think he would have been as successful at bolstering his political movement if he used the terms "Socialist" and "Capitalist"?
Not in the USA. Socialist is almost as bad as racist in much of the country. That's why Bernie will never win.
https://birrion.substack.com/p/its-ok-to-be-angry-about-bernie-sanders I address this here, Bernie's reformist approach is not helpful. It's capitalism, not uber-capitalism, and it's socialism that we need to replace it. Bernie doesn't argue for replacing capitalism according to the CNN article he shared.
I'll dive into your article in full, but do you think that's part of a strategy? I'm also curious why you think the "don't say Socialism" approach is unhelpful. That was his approach in 2016 and 2020, and despite losing, they both opened many people's eyes to the potential of Left politics.
That wasn't his approach - his approach was to say democratic socialism when he meant social democrat and to ill define it. Which also wasn't helpful, as I've differentiated here: https://realprogressives.org/social-democrat-vs-democratic-socialists/
"“Now, we must take the next step forward and guarantee every man, woman and child in our country basic economic rights – the right to quality health care, the right to as much education as one needs to succeed in our society, the right to a good job that pays a living wage, the right to affordable housing, the right to a secure retirement, and the right to live in a clean environment.
We must recognize that in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, economic rights are human rights. That is what I mean by democratic socialism.” - Bernie Sanders, 2019.
He has no problem saying "socialism" but he doesn't actually mean it, which results in a lot of people confused by what socialism is.
There's no doubt that the Bernie campaigns helped open people's eyes to the inequalities of the system and the potential of left politics. But his framing of socialism was not helpful to building an actual socialist movement. If you're going to say socialism, mean it.
I don't think I full agree with that, but I appreciate your take! And I'm bookmarking your articles to get back to later.
I think you're spot on. I'm not exactly sure what to call it, but I think there is a large portion of Americans who are open to democratic socialism/social democracy/anti-capitalism, whatever it may be, but they just don't even know it exists.
IMO, a big portion of that is how our society "declared victory" over socialism with the fall of the Soviet Union.