• Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’ve always felt that’s just pragmatism from Bernie, and in truth he’s ideologically a democratic socialist. If it makes any difference this is coming from a democratic socialist who’s a member of a social Democrat party.

    • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I’ve always felt that’s just pragmatism from Bernie,

      If you read his book “It’s Okay to Be Angry About Capitalism” it becomes very very obvious that this is the case. From quoting very radical anti-capitalists to tongue and cheek (somewhat) insider jokes such as naming the chapter on his time in mayoral politics “Socialism in one City”, it shows he’s definitely way more ideologically aligned with socialism than people give him credit for.

      • aski3252@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        As an European, I have never understood why so many American leftists don’t see that, even by simply listening to what he is saying or looking at what he is doing. I mean he literally has a picture of Eugene Debs on his desk and mentions how he is this political role model and hero any chance he gets, that alone should tell you where he stands on an ideological or philosophical level…

        And of course, he has been involved in various socialist groups his whole life and literally still calls himself a democratic socialist. Why would he do that if it wasn’t true? To gain a political advantage, in America of all places, where calling yourself a socialist would have generally been political suicide?

        And then are his policies, where many will focus on healthcare and say “he just wants healthcare” and ignore anything else. But of course, healthcare is a major issue because it makes the working class even more dependend on their employers because they lose tgeir healthcare if they get fired, so it makes sense for him to focus on tgat first. And of course, he also had other policy in his program, like transfering 20% of ownership over major corporations to their employees and having workers electing half of the board of directors.

        You can call him a reformer, you can call his participation ineffective, but why deny his political believes?