It’s hard to predict if Bernie would have beaten Trump. The GOP likely has a binder full of opposition research ready to go if Bernie had become nominee, with enough “scandals” and “socialist scare quotes” to mobilize their base even more. Meanwhile, Sanders didn’t even get more votes in the primary.
And yes, Trump winning in 2016 was a huge blow, with a lot of momentum from things like the Comey investigation and a more divided left base than on the right.
But it’s not fair to say that we should turn our back on politics, as this is exactly what causes the “will of the people” to not be heard. If young people want to be heard, they should vote in the same numbers as the older generations, and think strategically about which choices bring the highest benefit in the real world. Voting for someone who represents your ideals with no chance of winning is worse than voting for someone who only partially represents them but has an actual chance of winning. At least until first past the post is eliminated.
“It’s hard to predict if Bernie would have beaten Trump. The GOP likely has a binder full of opposition research ready to go if Bernie had become nominee, with enough “scandals” and “socialist scare quotes” to mobilize their base even more. Meanwhile, Sanders didn’t even get more votes in the primary”
Even if Bernie had gotten “more” votes in the primary, the DNC would have never made him their candidate.
Bernie was/is an independent in the senate so he had no incentive to play ball with the DNC or the well known “bending the knee”.
I am not from the US but I followed the 2015/16 primary with great interest because of Bernie Sanders and was hoping that the US was making the right call in electing him but the deck was and is stacked against him.
The playbook about Bernie sanders has been tried by Hilary Clinton. Bernie even said during a debate if people could stop talking about the emails because it was irrelevant. His problem was that he was to nice and issue focused in his approach but it actually is also the charm of an authentic figure like Bernie Sanders.
What Bernie has and Hilary hadn’t was consistency in his political career, and “fresh” ideas that resonated with the people.
The fact that he also was the only one who ran without a Super Pac also made sure that he could give the appearance of not being bought by the companies.
Bernie has been on the right side of history more than once and the receipts are for everyone to see.
He would have mopped the floor with trump if it came to the elections.
For the DNC/Democrats itself it doesn’t matter who has the majority. There is a status quo and the threat is someone rocking the boat.
To this day I wish my country actually had a Bernie Sanders who could run for the MP title.
You’re high if you don’t think Bernie would have gotten more votes from across the aisle than Biden. That’s just an insane argument. The fact that the DNC and Dems in general had issues with Bernie would have brought voters over. We saw when Bernie went on Fox and got a fantastic response that he was more able to cross that gap than some corporate Dem. I’d say voting for Biden in fear, or any same-ol’ candidate just perpetuates the bullshit of the past 5 decades.
Why make a new government when it will inevitably end up as an oppressive regime, just like every other nation and government. (don’t @ me, even NZ, Denmark and other “perfect” countries are still oppressive) Why not go all anarchist? It’s worked for a time Ukraine and Spain and I believe it could work here.
Yeah, he’s seriously 15 years old mentally. Sounds like libertarian garbled nonsense.
We all benefit from altruism. Because of one thing, technology. Let’s talk medical care for one, I have access to better healthcare than any medieval king had, actually I would say any human being has had on this earth since before 1980? 1985? Hell I don’t even know when.
Why is that? Because of medical advancements caused by scientific collaboration, which can be guided by public funding and public interests. How do you have these breakthroughs? You educate the populace and direct attention to scientific accomplishments.
Fuck anarchy, we are social species. Social democracy is the shit!
I am pretty new to politics and I align more with social democracy, but I’ve always being curious about anarcho communism and it isn’t about losing scientific advancements or everyone for themselves. I think an anarchist would argue that these things are possible and in fact encouraged, but that they should be handled directly by the community, cutting out the middle man of the government.
Whether this could work or not is another dilemma, and one I cannot answer.
Most anarchists don’t reject scientific endeavors, especially those that have huge benefits on quality of life. I don’t think anyone really disagrees that the washing machine was a bad invention, nor any such invention that reduces the burden of domestic labor. Science and technology themselves are not the problem, rather the problem is with the incentives of the system around science and technology. A great example being the pharmaceutical industry. Medicine and the treatment of disease is obviously a good thing, but profiteering off of those medicines and treatments is the real problem. An anarchist would argue that these companies are not necessary to advance medical science and that many people would research medicine purely because they want to treat disease and not because they want to make all of the money in the world. In fact, the people actually doing the research are chronically underpaid, underfunded, and overworked.
As for “everyone for themselves,” this gets to a really interesting discussion amongst anarchists. Anarcho Communism leans into the idea that, without the hierarchical power structures of states, people will generally choose to self-organize amongst themselves to better their own lives. Forming non-hierarchical communities that share resources as needed, hence the communism part.
Generally anarchists assert that people do not have to participate in systems if they don’t want to, while also asserting the right of the individual to oppose hierarchical power structures that would try to erode the rights of an individual’s self-determination.
I just don’t believe that could work at the global scale for scientific advancement. Government or not we need regulated research and technology. You need a government to do that because otherwise what would be the punishment?
I think whatever the system we use we need to develop the technology to enable verification and proof based systems.
whatever the system people will lie, cheat, and manipulate so none of them will work properly until we have ways of confirming claims built into all our systems from scientific research, media and technology right to politics and maybe even ever day speech.
If Anarchism were to ever be realized and people governed themselves cooperatively, yes I do think that. I’d rather not debate because that’s my opinion and I don’t think it’s going to change. We can agree to disagree.
Fair points - but even so, I still wouldnt call Denmark an oppressive nation. I’d still take the modern day Danish government and its social democratic policies over a neoliberal shitty government any day.
By this metric, what country would qualify as free and non-oppressive?
I fully agree but my point is that it’s impossible to have a country like that. The only way for it ever to be achieved in my opinion is through Anarchism.
How’s anarchy supposed to work? Both Ukraine and Spain have functioning “oppressive” governments now. I always figured that it’d end up with whoever has the most guns ending up doing whatever they want.
The reason that those two countries are now under “authoritarian” rule is the fact that the anarchist communities that were functioning were shutdown by neighboring states. It would take a truly global revolution for anarchism to work. However, I could see that happening in my lifetime due to the state of the planet. Once there’s nothing left for us to extract and nothing left to fight over nations will have very little power.
This is why the unification of ends and means is so important. If we want to achieve a society that is non-hierarchical and free from oppression, the systems that we build within the struggle against oppressive forces needs to embody non-hierarchical organization and practice.
It’s why a revolution that’s created by a small minority, a “vanguard,” ceases to be revolutionary once it recreates state power and then must structure itself to the maintenance of it’s own authority.
The best form of protest a young person can do is leaving America. No need to lie flat when you speak English and have an American passport. Hell, depending on the country you could probably even get away with not paying your student loans (and that living situation gives you a lot of leverage if you wanted to renegotiate your loan)
deleted by creator
It’s hard to predict if Bernie would have beaten Trump. The GOP likely has a binder full of opposition research ready to go if Bernie had become nominee, with enough “scandals” and “socialist scare quotes” to mobilize their base even more. Meanwhile, Sanders didn’t even get more votes in the primary.
And yes, Trump winning in 2016 was a huge blow, with a lot of momentum from things like the Comey investigation and a more divided left base than on the right.
But it’s not fair to say that we should turn our back on politics, as this is exactly what causes the “will of the people” to not be heard. If young people want to be heard, they should vote in the same numbers as the older generations, and think strategically about which choices bring the highest benefit in the real world. Voting for someone who represents your ideals with no chance of winning is worse than voting for someone who only partially represents them but has an actual chance of winning. At least until first past the post is eliminated.
“It’s hard to predict if Bernie would have beaten Trump. The GOP likely has a binder full of opposition research ready to go if Bernie had become nominee, with enough “scandals” and “socialist scare quotes” to mobilize their base even more. Meanwhile, Sanders didn’t even get more votes in the primary”
Even if Bernie had gotten “more” votes in the primary, the DNC would have never made him their candidate.
Bernie was/is an independent in the senate so he had no incentive to play ball with the DNC or the well known “bending the knee”.
I am not from the US but I followed the 2015/16 primary with great interest because of Bernie Sanders and was hoping that the US was making the right call in electing him but the deck was and is stacked against him.
The playbook about Bernie sanders has been tried by Hilary Clinton. Bernie even said during a debate if people could stop talking about the emails because it was irrelevant. His problem was that he was to nice and issue focused in his approach but it actually is also the charm of an authentic figure like Bernie Sanders.
What Bernie has and Hilary hadn’t was consistency in his political career, and “fresh” ideas that resonated with the people.
The fact that he also was the only one who ran without a Super Pac also made sure that he could give the appearance of not being bought by the companies.
Bernie has been on the right side of history more than once and the receipts are for everyone to see.
He would have mopped the floor with trump if it came to the elections.
For the DNC/Democrats itself it doesn’t matter who has the majority. There is a status quo and the threat is someone rocking the boat.
To this day I wish my country actually had a Bernie Sanders who could run for the MP title.
This is one of my favorite clips about Bernie Sanders that say it all; https://youtu.be/5M2SQzA363A
You’re high if you don’t think Bernie would have gotten more votes from across the aisle than Biden. That’s just an insane argument. The fact that the DNC and Dems in general had issues with Bernie would have brought voters over. We saw when Bernie went on Fox and got a fantastic response that he was more able to cross that gap than some corporate Dem. I’d say voting for Biden in fear, or any same-ol’ candidate just perpetuates the bullshit of the past 5 decades.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
More Bernie voters supported Hillary than Hillary voters supported Obama. Don’t get your panties in a bunch about something that isn’t a large factor.
Removed by mod
Why make a new government when it will inevitably end up as an oppressive regime, just like every other nation and government. (don’t @ me, even NZ, Denmark and other “perfect” countries are still oppressive) Why not go all anarchist? It’s worked for a time Ukraine and Spain and I believe it could work here.
You think the world would be better if there was no government than if there was one like in Denmark or New Zealand? Are you serious?
Yeah, he’s seriously 15 years old mentally. Sounds like libertarian garbled nonsense.
We all benefit from altruism. Because of one thing, technology. Let’s talk medical care for one, I have access to better healthcare than any medieval king had, actually I would say any human being has had on this earth since before 1980? 1985? Hell I don’t even know when.
Why is that? Because of medical advancements caused by scientific collaboration, which can be guided by public funding and public interests. How do you have these breakthroughs? You educate the populace and direct attention to scientific accomplishments.
Fuck anarchy, we are social species. Social democracy is the shit!
I am pretty new to politics and I align more with social democracy, but I’ve always being curious about anarcho communism and it isn’t about losing scientific advancements or everyone for themselves. I think an anarchist would argue that these things are possible and in fact encouraged, but that they should be handled directly by the community, cutting out the middle man of the government.
Whether this could work or not is another dilemma, and one I cannot answer.
Most anarchists don’t reject scientific endeavors, especially those that have huge benefits on quality of life. I don’t think anyone really disagrees that the washing machine was a bad invention, nor any such invention that reduces the burden of domestic labor. Science and technology themselves are not the problem, rather the problem is with the incentives of the system around science and technology. A great example being the pharmaceutical industry. Medicine and the treatment of disease is obviously a good thing, but profiteering off of those medicines and treatments is the real problem. An anarchist would argue that these companies are not necessary to advance medical science and that many people would research medicine purely because they want to treat disease and not because they want to make all of the money in the world. In fact, the people actually doing the research are chronically underpaid, underfunded, and overworked.
As for “everyone for themselves,” this gets to a really interesting discussion amongst anarchists. Anarcho Communism leans into the idea that, without the hierarchical power structures of states, people will generally choose to self-organize amongst themselves to better their own lives. Forming non-hierarchical communities that share resources as needed, hence the communism part.
Generally anarchists assert that people do not have to participate in systems if they don’t want to, while also asserting the right of the individual to oppose hierarchical power structures that would try to erode the rights of an individual’s self-determination.
Does that help?
Yeah that checks out from what I’ve read.
Do you have any resources I could read? My main doubts are regarding how would it work on a global scale
I just don’t believe that could work at the global scale for scientific advancement. Government or not we need regulated research and technology. You need a government to do that because otherwise what would be the punishment?
I just can’t see it working on the large scale.
I think whatever the system we use we need to develop the technology to enable verification and proof based systems.
whatever the system people will lie, cheat, and manipulate so none of them will work properly until we have ways of confirming claims built into all our systems from scientific research, media and technology right to politics and maybe even ever day speech.
If Anarchism were to ever be realized and people governed themselves cooperatively, yes I do think that. I’d rather not debate because that’s my opinion and I don’t think it’s going to change. We can agree to disagree.
If people govern themselves, that’s a government. How do you actually imagine it would work?
…Denmark is oppressive? lol
In my opinion any entity that put’s power in the hands of a few who decide the fate of many (governments) will become oppressive to some degree. As for Denmark specifically: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/scandinavian-miracle-brutal-truth-denmark-norway-sweden. Also centuries of oppression of the First People’s in Greenland.
Fair points - but even so, I still wouldnt call Denmark an oppressive nation. I’d still take the modern day Danish government and its social democratic policies over a neoliberal shitty government any day.
By this metric, what country would qualify as free and non-oppressive?
I fully agree but my point is that it’s impossible to have a country like that. The only way for it ever to be achieved in my opinion is through Anarchism.
How’s anarchy supposed to work? Both Ukraine and Spain have functioning “oppressive” governments now. I always figured that it’d end up with whoever has the most guns ending up doing whatever they want.
The reason that those two countries are now under “authoritarian” rule is the fact that the anarchist communities that were functioning were shutdown by neighboring states. It would take a truly global revolution for anarchism to work. However, I could see that happening in my lifetime due to the state of the planet. Once there’s nothing left for us to extract and nothing left to fight over nations will have very little power.
deleted by creator
This is why the unification of ends and means is so important. If we want to achieve a society that is non-hierarchical and free from oppression, the systems that we build within the struggle against oppressive forces needs to embody non-hierarchical organization and practice.
It’s why a revolution that’s created by a small minority, a “vanguard,” ceases to be revolutionary once it recreates state power and then must structure itself to the maintenance of it’s own authority.
The best form of protest a young person can do is leaving America. No need to lie flat when you speak English and have an American passport. Hell, depending on the country you could probably even get away with not paying your student loans (and that living situation gives you a lot of leverage if you wanted to renegotiate your loan)
Unless you have one of the in-demand degrees or specialties, most countries aren’t going to just let you move in.
Not EVERY country for every skill set, sure. But there’s plenty of countries that you can move to with a CELTA