What people seem to be arguing about in the thread is more a strategic position of whether or not you should "support" him. But I don't think it's all that complicated.
Bernie's the first person in the electoral sphere to symbolically lead a left-wing coalition in decades. He's a social democrat that helped drag thousands of Americans to the left. He hasn't proposed socialism, so if you're a socialist he wouldn't be your ideological north star. I supported him electorally, I'm happy I canvassed for him. Parenti is right, and I would have loved if Bernie took up foreign policy more heavily, but it's obvious that someone with Parenti's views wouldn't have been able to come nearly as close as he did to the presidency.
Gloria La Riva on the day Bernie ended his campaign says it better than I do: "Even though we in the PSL are running our own campaign, and although we are opponents of the democratic party, which is 100% pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist, we took the position of critical support for Bernie Sanders because we are in solidarity with the millions of people who were building a movement who supported his campaign and demanding far-reaching social change. We didn't see eye to eye on some issues, especially international, but his far-reaching domestic program is desperately needed."
If your argument is "we should have supported a stronger anti-imperialist against Bernie" then I disagree, because we miraculously had a social democrat within some striking distance of the nomination. If your argument is "Bernie would have been the ideal person to lead the country" then I disagree too, because I'm a stronger anti-imperialist, and I'm not a social democrat. As for this post, critique of Bernie is good and useful for the movement, especially after he lost.
I think I just wrote the most centrist American left unity take possible, which IMO is all we can aspire to at this moment. Also obligatory electoralism is not everything.
You just can't really disagree with this take.
What people seem to be arguing about in the thread is more a strategic position of whether or not you should "support" him. But I don't think it's all that complicated.
Bernie's the first person in the electoral sphere to symbolically lead a left-wing coalition in decades. He's a social democrat that helped drag thousands of Americans to the left. He hasn't proposed socialism, so if you're a socialist he wouldn't be your ideological north star. I supported him electorally, I'm happy I canvassed for him. Parenti is right, and I would have loved if Bernie took up foreign policy more heavily, but it's obvious that someone with Parenti's views wouldn't have been able to come nearly as close as he did to the presidency.
Gloria La Riva on the day Bernie ended his campaign says it better than I do: "Even though we in the PSL are running our own campaign, and although we are opponents of the democratic party, which is 100% pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist, we took the position of critical support for Bernie Sanders because we are in solidarity with the millions of people who were building a movement who supported his campaign and demanding far-reaching social change. We didn't see eye to eye on some issues, especially international, but his far-reaching domestic program is desperately needed."
If your argument is "we should have supported a stronger anti-imperialist against Bernie" then I disagree, because we miraculously had a social democrat within some striking distance of the nomination. If your argument is "Bernie would have been the ideal person to lead the country" then I disagree too, because I'm a stronger anti-imperialist, and I'm not a social democrat. As for this post, critique of Bernie is good and useful for the movement, especially after he lost.
I think I just wrote the most centrist American left unity take possible, which IMO is all we can aspire to at this moment. Also obligatory electoralism is not everything.