Eduard Bernstein

Much has been made over the fact that Senator Bernie Sanders is the first socialist to have a legitimate shot at winning the presidency. And throughout the campaign, Senator Sanders has been adamant in clarifying that he is a Democratic Socialist. This is a rather important clarification because socialism is an incredibly broad label. It can describe Extremist Right groups like the Nazi Party, to Extremist Left groups like the Communist Party of the USSR, as well as a wide array of moderate ideologies that underpin modern welfare states and even the most beloved programs of the United States government, i.e. Social Security and Medicare. Democratic Socialism has emerged, to use a Hegelian style of discourse, as a synthesis between the ideals of socialist movements and the realities of market driven economies. In fact, the very first discussions about Democratic Socialism emerged as a direct result of the named successor to Karl Marx and his realization that despite the failure of socialist revolutions to even take place, the life of the average worker was improving. This man was named Eduard Bernstein and his break from the Marxist orthodoxy is one of the most relevant stories for the American Left to remember as we approach the end of the primary season.

“The movement is everything, the final goal is nothing.” -Eduard Bernstein. Marxist socialism was a reaction to the horrible conditions of the industrial revolution, which saw the lives of countless millions ruined in the pursuit of wealth for a select few. First, as the wealthiest echelons of society bought up lands that had long been the livelihoods of tenant farmers since time immemorial, forcing them to seek work in the cities. Then those cities became filthy, dangerous places to live as men, women, and children worked endlessly long days in dismal conditions for the meagerest of wages. It seemed, therefore, inevitable that the people who were suffering under such conditions would rise up to demand justice and a greater share of the immense wealth that was being funneled to the top. But it never happened. There was never a great proletariate uprising in the UK or Germany, where Marx was convinced it would happen. In fact, as the industrial revolution continued, the life expectancy of workers slowly went up. The population boomed as food and consumer products became more abundant and affordable. And though there were still many problems facing the factory workers, unions were proven time and again to be effective advocates for higher wages, more reasonable hours, the end of child labor, etc. This threw a significant wrench into the theory that had convinced so many people that revolution was just around the corner.

When Marx died, he pointed to Bernstein to continue his advocacy for “scientific socialism,” and for the workers’ revolution. Still the revolution never came, yet in many ways the combination of the invisible hand, unions, and government regulation were doing their job of correcting for the market failures that had earlier plagued the changing economy. But there were still significant problems. To say that the lives of workers improved is not much of an achievement, as it’s hard to get much worse than 18 hour days, 7 days a week in a mill for a starvation wage in a society plagued with smog, tainted water, and questionable food quality. Faced with this reality, socialists of the time were forced to choose between fighting for the goal of “scientific socialism,” i.e. the workers’ revolution; or else fighting for the movement itself, i.e. the advancement and flourishing of human life in the face of market pressures to the contrary. By choosing to pursue the latter, Bernstein effectively laid the foundation for what would become every ensuing Democratic Socialist, and Social Democratic, movement that has since been founded.

This was not a popular choice at the time. To many followers of Marx it was as if the Pope himself had rejected Catholicism. Communists favored the continued pursuit of the final goal, and had success only in countries where Marx was actually convinced the revolution couldn’t come, e.g. agrarian Russia and China. The results are astonishing between what happens when you pursue the movement in countries like the UK or France or Germany that have significant socialized institutions, versus what happens when you pursue the final goal in countries like China, North Korea, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union. And I bring this up because I see a strong parallel among supporters of Bernie Sanders who are struggling with the realization that the revolution isn’t coming.

As someone who supports Bernie Sanders, who’s contributed to the Sanders campaign, who sports Bernie swag, and who voted for Senator Bernie Sanders in the Nevada caucus; I am in the uncomfortable position of recognizing that the goal is untenable, but the movement remains and is worth fighting for. The movement in the United States is now inextricably linked to the Democratic Party and increasingly dependent on the election of Hillary Clinton. I do not begrudge a single person who supports Bernie every single day and on every single election up until the convention, because he represents a voice that needs to be heard across the country, but I cannot support any attempts to throw the baby out with the bath water once a nominee is chosen.

Too many of Bernie’s supporters view his election as the only thing worth fighting for, and that goal is worth throwing away everything he has fought for. If you care about universal healthcare, that won’t come about with a Republican led government. If you want high quality education from pre-k to university to be the birthright of every American, you can’t allow Trump to win. And even if all the policies took a back seat, even if the only reason you supported Bernie was because he’s the most honest and decent candidate, then there is still no reason you should ever support Trump over Clinton.

If I’ve said it once I’ve said it, well maybe eight times, Democrats are absolutely terrible at politics. This is most evident in the reputation of Hillary Clinton. Say what you will about Secretary Clinton, and I have made my criticisms known, but any person who claims that she is fundamentally dishonest, or at the very least less honest than Donald Trump, has no idea what they are talking about. Every candidate on the Democratic side has the starting advantage of living in the real world, where America’s economy is doing pretty well, and doing fantastically well compared to the world stage. Unemployment is down, wages are rising, since Obama has taken office there have been more Americans killed by infants than terrorists, and more people have health insurance and a college education than at any point in US history. The Republicans apparently have never heard of facts or statistics or reality and so they are forced to paint delusional parodies of America that need to be completely overhauled to “make America great again.” But even beyond that starting point, as a candidate Hillary Clinton is, depending on exactly how you assess it, either the most honest candidate outright or tied with Bernie for that honor.
Politifact is a well trusted organization to fairly look at the claims that are made on the trail and despite a couple of “Pants-on-Fire” ratings, which Bernie lacks, she has more out and out true statements than Bernie and fewer false statements in general. You can disagree with what her positions are and heck you can even pin her for changing some positions, but on the whole she has always been a better than most politician. And this is again why I have to say how annoyed I am by how bad at politics Democrats are, because despite a strong record of honesty, decency, and standing up for people who don’t have the loudest voices in this country, she has been branded as dishonest, Machiavellian, and a tool for moneyed interests. Despite being a brilliant example for young women everywhere as a model for what can be done even in the face of dogged and sexist opposition, she is maligned, not for her own personal failings, but for what her husband did. You can spin stories and cherry pick evidence to make the stories seem more compelling, but the only reason we’ve gotten to this point is because of the dogmatic conservative opposition that labels anyone to the Left of Margaret Thatcher as a socialist, and even Maggie would need to explain why she didn’t kill the NHS. The attacks on Hillary Clinton are usually baseless and needlessly vicious just to score political points; and what is the end result of this tarring and feathering? It certainly isn’t a more viable path for Bernie and it sure as hell isn’t an easier path toward the solutions he’s espoused.

Now let’s compare her to the now presumptive nominee of the GOP, Donald Trump. I have a job that forces me to listen at length to his speeches, such as they are, and to the extent that they are intelligible they are demonstrably wrong. He makes up numbers from the size of his crowds to the number of undocumented immigrants in this country, inflating the actual numbers by 3-10 times what reality would dictate. He declares that he has support from analysts and experts for his deranged policies that simply aren’t there. He asserts that his policies are feasible, they are, and would solve the debt crisis, which they wouldn’t, and ultimately even if they didn’t it’s ok because he likes to play with debt and bankruptcy. He has more “Pants-on-fire” ratings than any other candidate who has ever run, and so far Politifact has only labeled 3 claims of his to be true, one of which being that Putin is popular in Russia. He is wrongheaded and dishonest, but people think he keeps it real. I don’t know what reality he’s keeping but it’s not this one and frankly it’s never even consistent to one alternate reality. He has flip-flopped on more issues in the last year than Clinton has in a lifetime: from abortion to the Iraq War, from universal healthcare to public education, from the minimum wage to the use of nuclear weapons on our allies. But because the conservative establishment has done such a great job at convincing people that Political Correctness is dishonesty and therefore the antithesis to it must be honesty, he gets to baselessly claim he is the clean and honest one compared to Hillary Clinton.

I remain a Bernie supporter, and if I had it my way he would be the Democratic nominee, but so far more people have voted for Hillary Clinton, more delegates have been earned by Hillary Clinton, so yes more Super Delegates have been pledged to Hillary Clinton and that’s fine. I am not in the business of hero worship, I live in a pragmatic and real world where we have significant problems, even as things are getting better, and we need to actually try to fix them. The Bernie Sanders election is nothing, the Bernie Sanders movement is everything. Any person who feels the Bern, should feel ashamed if they profess that they would rather vote for Trump than a fine candidate like Hillary Clinton. Because the only thing that could actually stop the movement in its track is the success of conservatism even with the most despicable and disgusting candidates they have ever fielded.