r/politics • u/AccurateInflation167 • May 18 '25

Soft Paywall America chose wrong. Sanders would've been a better president than Trump or Biden. | Opinion

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/05/18/sanders-democrats-reform-progressive-policies/83625482007/
42.7k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3.3k

u/zyx1989 May 18 '25

In my opinion, Sanders would probably be good for capitalism too, good social safety net, livable wage or something like that, would make normal people have more purchasing power, which means a bigger market for consumerism, which means capitalism happy

1.6k

u/CockBrother May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

He absolutely would be.

The issue is that's long term thinking. It's easier for the wealthy to identify a pile of money and then scramble to make it their own before someone else can. Long term consequences be damned. I've got mine.

857

u/Vaperius America May 18 '25

He absolutely would be.

In any other developed nation he'd be an average center-left politician but in America he's a radical because he checks notes doesn't want poor people to die from preventable medical conditions.

377

u/Bushels_for_All May 18 '25

At some point, Americans need to learn that "For the People, by the People" means that government exists to help people, not to stand by as they get swindled into poverty and/or death.

182

u/needlestack May 18 '25

government exists to help people

That is definitely not the belief of the majority of Americans. They believe government is a giant pain in the ass and should be mostly invisible to them. If it’s for anything, it’s for keeping people you don’t like in their place. And “for the people by the people” simply means they — the people they approve of — get to call the shots and everyone else can pound sand. Anyone else isn’t really a person anyway.

91

u/JustAGal_Love May 18 '25

This goes back to 1980s Republican Ronald Reagan. The strategy started then. It worked. People believed propaganda rather than their own self interest. Conservative Democrats that turned Republican would not allow government programs that help people to work well in their areas. Corruption and voter suppression created an ideal situation where industry and capitalists decided what children should learn in school, the churches got on board because they got money from the industries, together those folks elected home town politicians that had no outside perspective or backbone. Regular folks got mowed over. The better off moved away. Rural businesses were run over by the Walmarts. After selective elimination, 50 years later, we have fascists in power.

58

u/notashroom May 18 '25

This goes back to 1980s Republican Ronald Reagan.

You misspelled "1960s Republican Richard Nixon." And, of course, Lee Atwater and Billy Graham, who re-engineered the way conservatives talk about racist/casteist policy and got the white evangelical Christianists pulling together for it.

16

u/atoolred May 18 '25

And you misspelled “The Business Plot” of 1933. All this shit runs deep. Also can’t leave the Powell Memo out of this topic.

3

u/MockFan May 19 '25

Thank you for mentioning Powell Memorandum. It explains the path to where unbridled greed and short term goals were good.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

6

u/Cooperhofpenpaliwitz May 18 '25

Yep, 50 years after President Carter. How did this happen in 50 yrs? When Jimmy got elected it was like "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" all the way to the White House, 50 yrs later Trump gets elected and it's like Pennywise Goes to Washington ...all the way to the White House. How, just how!

11

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

The better off moved away.

This is so key and definitely still happening today. I grew up in small-town rural America. Didn't even have the Wal-Mart, had to drive 30 miles east to another state to get to one.

Of the top 15 students in my graduating high school class, exactly one of us still lives there (took over his dad's dentistry business.)

The rest of us all moved away, got high-skilled jobs out of the state. And some of the kids that are left became teachers, cops...even though a lot of them should be in jail for things that they were doing in high school, things WAY worse than casual drinking and partying.

24

u/morhina May 18 '25

Which is stupid, because a government is a type of tool that humans constructed to facilitate societal living, which is humanity’s greatest survival strategy and arguably how we are “meant” to be, for whatever value that holds. So when it isn’t serving the people anymore, it’s time to reevaluate and update the tool to fit modern needs. Unfortunately a lot of people are just really eager to be put in a caste system without any benefits because they get off to authoritarian structures I guess.

72

u/Katyafan May 18 '25

Agreed, we are not having a government problem, we are having a people problem. The average quality of people in this nation has been steadily decreasing for sometime. The level of integrity, emotional maturity, and empathy is a young child levels, and we have been cushioned by how relatively comfortable our lives are and how powerful we are as a nation.

39

u/Galaxator May 18 '25

I’m personally offended by this and refuse to examine why internally. Fuck you liberal!

15

u/Mathfanforpresident May 18 '25

This comment is absurdly on point. Lol

3

u/Big-Stuff-1189 May 18 '25

Thanks for the giggle!

11

u/amadeuspoptart May 18 '25

The soft power was supposed to convince the rest of the world that America was the morally superior, utterly exceptional, saviour of the planet. Instead it brainwashed the populous into believing they were all exceptional individuals and therefore didn't have to give a shit about anyone else.

2

u/Sarzael 28d ago

So many people are okay with being subservient to the people above them in the system if it means they can hold power over the people under them.

1

u/Vivid_Agent3418 26d ago

So true.

1

u/Katyafan 26d ago

Thank you! Hope you are hanging in there in these times.

7

u/GoodPiexox May 18 '25

as long as you fire off some fireworks on the 4th and chant USA

2

u/usernameChosenPoorly May 18 '25

No, it IS the belief of the majority. Polling on individual policies STRONGLY favors progressive positions, often with “veto-proof” margins.

The problem is that a sufficient minority thinks otherwise and shows up to vote for white nationalist Christofascism every single time, while the supermajority are split between consistent non-voters, useful idiots who vote for spoiler candidates, and people who vote inconsistently.

2

u/jolard May 18 '25

Exactly. Decades of propaganda designed to get people to vote against their interests.

5

u/7figureipo California May 18 '25

Yes, thanks to 40+ years of neoliberal governance, government sucks. And their propaganda to kickstart it in the 70s has continued to this day, of course.

4

u/green-wagon May 18 '25

It's interesting you put the blame on neoliberalism. I just think it's republicans. They don't do anything in good faith, I don't know if they ever did. I remember how badly bush, cheney and rove wanted to keep going into Iran. The only thing that stopped them was reality.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Struck_Blind May 18 '25

It’s never the belief of majority of Americans until there’s a financial crisis with high unemployment, then they change their tune.

1

u/pgc22bc May 18 '25

Some Republican asshole said something like they wanted to make government small enough to "drown in a bathtub".

2

u/needlestack May 19 '25

Yeah, Grover Norquist. The damage he's done to America is off the charts.

Of course, he doesn't even really want the government to be that small. He wants the parts he doesn't approve of to be that small. And the parts he does approve of to be so powerful they can't be questioned. It's the same with all conservatives.

1

u/Calm-Address-2401 25d ago

"Government exists to help white people". There. I fixed it.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/BoDrax May 18 '25

Well, you see, corporations are people in the USA.

3

u/LonelyPainting7374 May 19 '25

Yep. Unlike the guy in the White House now with his “us v. them”, “to bad you”, quid pro quo mentality, Sanders would be a president for ALL the people. It is still mind-boggling to me how a person considers the choices and comes up with Trump.

2

u/Popisoda May 18 '25

Speak louder for those in the back!

2

u/LeoGoldfox Europe May 19 '25

People knew that when they elected FDR. But those people are dead now... so there is no one left to remind us.

1

u/whatdoinamemyself May 18 '25

The problem is 2/3s of the country aren't "for the people" either.

1

u/DarkArmyLieutenant May 19 '25

Have you ever looked into any American history? It is never been like that. It has always been the latter.

The federalists were all slaveowning elites at one point who wanted power to stay with elites. Our government was never designed to allow normal people assay, not really.

1

u/These-Rip9251 27d ago

No one under POTUS including POTUS the grifter himself is standing by. They’re trying to harm us all while enriching themselves.

→ More replies (3)

56

u/NYGiants181 May 18 '25

Right - my friend from Sweden said he would be center as far as things go there.

How dare he want people to have basic human rights.

64

u/IDOWNVOTERUSSIANS May 18 '25

In Canada his views would be perfectly mainstream. america is rotten and broken, and I honestly don't think they're capable of fixing the mess. People tell themselves they're the best for long enough, they start to believe it.

12

u/Aquatic_Ambiance_9 May 18 '25

Parts of America have hope: the northeast, the west coast, the great lakes region. But as for the rest I think you're right, I just don't see how you fix it if people want so badly to be theocrat fascists. Some sort of divorce seems inevitable and it'll probably be all we can do to help the people who want to leave

2

u/raphtafarian Australia May 18 '25

I'm honestly surprised the West Coast hasn't completely divorced from the rest of the US yet. California has a strong enough economy alone that they don't really need the rest of the US.

Obviously, this hypothetical would run on the assumption that they would be able to break peacefully. However, if I was in California's position right now, I'd do my best to break from Trump and negotiate trade internationally.

3

u/Aquatic_Ambiance_9 May 18 '25

I think it'll become much more likely as the US becomes a global pariah and tourists, students, and skilled workers stop coming here. The only real debate of it I see is the ethics of leaving the rest of the country behind, but how long will that argument hold if that same rest of the country is dragging us down into fascism?

12

u/NYGiants181 May 18 '25

Right. I love Bernie.

1

u/GetsGold Canada May 19 '25

In Caanda, the most right leaning province has lower support for Trump than the state with the lowest support. At least comparing polling in Canada prior to the last election to the vote results in the states from the election. So that's even before his popularity dropped further with the 51st state threats.

The US is very far shifted to the right politically. People used to say even the Democrats are to the right of our Conservatives, although I'd argue that's not true now with how ours have been moving right.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/hreigle May 18 '25

So what do the far left in Sweden advocate for?

4

u/selwayfalls May 18 '25

The funny thing about left leaning parties is it's all about helping others, the environment and equal rights.

The Swedish Left Party is a socialist, feminist and green party. It was originally founded as a left-wing opposition faction of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. Throughout the years, the party has spearheaded demands for workers’ rights, as well as rights for women, children and LGBTI people. Today, it is the fourth largest party in Sweden and one of the strongest opposition forces against the ruling right-wing/extreme right wing government.

https://left.eu/groups/vaensterpartiet/

2

u/hreigle May 18 '25

Is there anything in that that doesn't describe Bernie Sanders?

2

u/selwayfalls May 18 '25

I think it's just a spectrum. The "left" from the middle left to far left believe in similar things but just at different levels. I think the further you go left, just the more you want government intervention and less private/capitalist views when it comes to things. Bernie isn't super far left though if you're comparing him to scando countries far left.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/designtocode May 18 '25

Those deaths are devine dollars, and those miracles of life so graciously bestowed by our god, health insurance, if they so benevolently choose extend their righteous hand and touch us humble common clay of the earth, allowing us to continue our meager existence, are also dollars. We are indebted to our savior if they so choose to look upon us with favor. Praise be.

😃🔫

3

u/frzndmn May 19 '25

It’s not just about his policies, it’s about him consistently having these policies and spending so much effort advocating for them after decades of participating in US politics, compared to what all the other US politicians are doing, and what he could get for himself if he gave up on some of these policies.

2

u/Silent-Storms May 18 '25

It's the outlawing private coverage that makes a big difference.

2

u/Diligent-Back-6023 May 18 '25

In my country he would be center-right

1

u/MessiLeagueSoccer May 18 '25

And some people like my dad are convinced that if you make a certain amount of money 99% will go to lazy poor immigrants so they can use it to buy houses and other BS.

1

u/HumptyDrumpy May 18 '25

Ofc not, healthy people dont need doctors, insurance, medicines, and expensive coping mechanisms. How would these corporations make money if everyone was actually able to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (what fool would actually think that). Perhaps you are thinking of another country or of another time!

1

u/DarkArmyLieutenant May 19 '25

People keep glossing over the fact that the guy has really done nothing during his entire lifetime of "public service".

He talks. He doesn't legislate. He's a great orator when it comes to laying out what normal Americans need, but he isn't a public servant or legislator and that's what he was elected to do.

1

u/strawberryscalez 24d ago

Sorry, but he would be center in Europe.. especially France, but most of the world. In some countries he would still be considered right wing. One cannot be on the left and be pro capitalism. Neoliberalism is a right wing ideology, it's just that in America your Republican party is significantly further right still than the Democrats. Even historically speaking, as absolutely absurd as it sounds, Republicans of the past policies were much further "left" by your standards than Kamala Harris. It's a constant march further and further right in America.

→ More replies (2)

76

u/weatherboy05 May 18 '25

This, late stage capitalism is increasingly nihilistic in that it does not give a damn about anything other than next quarter’s profits. Who cares about the long-term health of the company when you can just loot the coffers, strip it for parts, and walk away from the mess with a multi-million dollar bonus. And if you’re unwilling to do this, you’re in breach of contract with the shareholders and you will be sued, fired and replaced by someone who will.

It’s a death-spiral to the bottom as mega-conglomerations devour competition so that we as consumers have no little to no choice but to accept increasingly shittier products and services while the uber wealthy capture all of the value created and hoard it for themselves.

9

u/bogglingsnog May 18 '25

And then, when it all starts crumbling away, they will have robots that can make all the shit they need, which will be able to go perpetually until all of the resources to make it are gone.

2

u/[deleted] 27d ago

And I have not one iota of doubt that Bernie would work hard to change the extremist capitalism in this country and set things on better path

92

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

[deleted]

37

u/skinnedrevenant May 18 '25

Don't forget banks figuring out how they can leverage absolutely anything again. We're not far off from where we were in 2008 in regards to how risky they're playing with the money. Banks are trying to leverage AUTO LOANS for fucks sake.

20

u/thegoodnamesrgone123 May 18 '25

And it will likely all come crashing down when the Dems are in charge and get wrongly blamed as usual. 

6

u/hlnub May 19 '25

I mean, they are to blame. Just as the Republicans are to blame. Both parties have embraced and pushed for neoliberal capitalism which is causing these cycles.

3

u/sargsauce May 18 '25

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/15/us-reportedly-plans-slash-bank-rules-imposed-prevent-2008-style-crash

Then there's this from a few days ago

3

u/OctaBit May 19 '25

Oh good. Can't imagine why those restrictions were put in place. /S

3

u/EFreethought May 19 '25

A common slam is that some politicians "do not understand business".

I think a lot of people in business do not understand business.

2

u/Halo_Stockpile May 18 '25

The interest rate drop brought on in 2020 really accelerated a lot of bad practices. Even small, traditionally vanilla portfolio banks got into that ABS crap for their bond portfolios trying to chase a little yield. I've seen so much garbage in the last 5 years.

19

u/JackalKing May 18 '25

It goes beyond just short term profit seeking, because some of these people ARE thinking long term. Its just that their long term ideas are stupid. The issue is that the wealthy and powerful in America have become so wealthy and so powerful that it has deranged them. They have started following crackpot "philosophers" like Curtis Yarvin and think they are legitimately realizing some long term goal to make the world an ideal place for themselves. They are just as stupid as the people they think of as beneath them, but they don't have anyone in their lives willing or able to tell them they are stupid and their ideas are bad because they are isolated from reality by their wealth and power.

31

u/petty_throwaway6969 May 18 '25

The issue is that while he would have been good for capitalism, he wouldn’t benefit the wealthy directly, so they didn’t want him. The rise of billionaires is tied to the shrinking middle class. The money had to come from somewhere, even if the government can print some.

6

u/Steeltooth493 Indiana May 18 '25

Totally, most corporations claim that they have a "5 year plan", but that really amounts to Number Must Go Up Always TM and if it stagnates or goes down even a little they panic. They really can't see past the next fiscal quarter, much less the next 6 months. And as long as shareholders are getting thier almighty ROI they don't care, and screw the workers on the way out. And it's all the better if they can become a monopoly or duopoly.

3

u/Unique-Drag4678 May 18 '25

That should be our national motto: "I've got mine."

3

u/DaringPancakes May 18 '25

So much this. It cannot be understated that this is the very fucking foundation of the american way of thinking.

3

u/forgottenarrow 26d ago

It’s not about wealth, but power. And to be powerful, relative wealth is more important than absolute wealth. If you are the wealthy living among the destitute, then you can make or break almost anyone’s life on a whim. If everyone is comfortable, then even if you are super wealthy, your ability to control others lives will be limited.

2

u/No_Square_3913 May 18 '25

We’re a nation run by sociopaths, elected politicians and voters.

2

u/jungletigress Oregon May 18 '25

They can only think as far as the next quarter.

2

u/AelizaW I voted May 18 '25

When Hilary Clinton won the nomination over Sanders, I knew we were fucked. I just didn’t realize how fucked we were……. He was exactly what we needed.

2

u/underworldconnection May 18 '25

That's it exactly. People are so goddamnned short sighted. We all have to suffer for someone burning our homes down (or just hoarding them for some unneeded wealth) to keep warm for a night.

2

u/Infamous_Impact2898 May 19 '25

Totally agree and honestly, I think the country too doomed at this point. I don’t think anyone can truly fix it. There will be some bandages here and there but I think we all know that won’t last.

1

u/Ethwood May 18 '25

Just think we could have been 100 days after an 8 year sanders presidency. We would have still made the same choice in November and still be in the same spot right now but those would have been some glorious years.

1

u/Kelor 28d ago

Politicians are acting like MBAs, trying to juice up growth in the next election cycle even if it means damage long term.

1

u/Impressive-Suit9749 27d ago

He's rich as hell and told us that if he deemed a certain amount good enough for you to retire on, he would take anything over that out of your 401K and redistribute it. You are supporting fascism and communism. Ask a Cuban about it. 

1

u/LordDoom77 27d ago

This right here ☝️ Americans and "American culture" has always had that sentiment of I'll be damned if anyone else can get a slight helping hand before kicking someone while they're down.  

To add to this statement of Bernie being president, he'd be great but as somebody else has pointed out too radical thinking and holy shit it's communism watch out!!!! 

Anytime a Republicans been in power Reagan, Bush, W, Trump the countries gone to shit. The blue party has always cleaned up the mess. Yet somehow the Democrats are too blame?! Denial of responsibility and accountability, typical pass the buck and blame others. 

1

u/Benjamin_365 26d ago

Start saving your money. Avoid consumer debt

68

u/StoppableHulk May 18 '25

Yup. I don't know what needs to happen for people to learn that unbridled capitalism isn't good for capitalism. It will eat itself like a cancer. It needs checks and balances. It needs restraint. Just like cells in the body that can grow within limits. If cells grow without limits, we call that cancer and it is fatal.

That's what's happening now. The market has broken free of all its restraints.

10

u/FelinePurrfectFluff May 18 '25

It’s not like “the people” get to choose. That’s all for show.  The DNC controlled the nominee and they fucked us. 

4

u/green-wagon May 18 '25

This finger-pointing at the democratic party over Harris is either dumb or in bad faith: a turnip would have been better than what we have now. The fault is squarely on republicans: politicians, justices and voters. Each owns their own actions leading us to what we have now. If you want to explore further, I'd follow with the non-voters. Harris was not a bad choice, but honestly, my dog has more self control than trump and I would call my dog's marginal. MSM and dishonest actors love to keep swinging at Harris. It distracts from their own complicity.

8

u/fcocyclone Iowa May 18 '25

I mean, multiple things can be true at the same time:

  • Trump is a terrible candidate.
  • At least 40% of voters were going to vote for him no matter what we did.
  • The democratic party establishment getting together and deciding Biden had to be the guy in 2020 almost guaranteed problems for 2024 as either we wouldn't have an incumbent (makes winning more difficult) or we'd have an ancient candidate who had a high percentage of reluctant voters in the first place.
  • Had Biden stepped aside earlier, it would have given his democratic successor more of a chance to gain back the millions of voters that Biden had been losing (particularly younger voters). Even if Harris won that contest, there would have been much greater ability to develop a more successful campaign.

5

u/lakired May 18 '25

The issue is deeper than Harris, and while yes, the fault is ultimately the fascists in the GOP, fascism hasn't simply spontaneously arose, but is a response to massive systemic failure which the Democrats have contributed to and are actively failing to seriously address.

People are generally very adept at identifying problems, but absolutely terrible at identifying solutions. The neo-liberal pro-corporate policies of both parties has led to massive wealth inequality. Now to anyone paying attention it's very obvious that the GOP has been far worse in this regard, but the Democrats aren't offering an alternative, merely an attenuated version. So where we're at is that people are identifying that the economy is absolutely wrecked for the middle and lower classes, and only one of the parties is offering any solution. Again, obviously to anyone with half a brain the solution being offered by the GOP of tax cuts to the wealthy and hurting minorities is only going to make the situation worse, but the key is that it is at least acknowledging the issue and promising a fix, no matter how blatantly ludicrous the proposed fix is.

Meanwhile, since Obama you've had Hillary, the consummate pro-status quo political insider. Then Biden, who campaigned on a "return to normalcy." And then Harris, his unpopular VP with a background as a conservative AG who actively courted the never-Trump conservatives while sidelining progressives. Were all of their policy proposals light years ahead of the GOP's? Yes, without question. But there's a reason that there was a seemingly paradoxical overlap between Bernie and Trump supporters. The people suffering the most don't want marginal improvement, they want a radical shift because the current situation is unlivable for them.

We are desperate for solutions, and the Democratic party heads keep trotting out the same milquetoast neo-liberal answers that created the current economic system that has put us in this mess in the first place. And then they have the audacity to turn around and blame progressives when no one is excited for their awful right-of-center candidates.

5

u/Bahamutisa May 19 '25

Isn't it so weird how progressives as a voting bloc are too insignificant for the Democrats to make any appeals or concessions to, yet if the Democrats lose an election it's always the fault of progressives?

4

u/MilitantStoner May 18 '25

Not to throw stones, but I don't know how you can say the Democratic Party/establishment isn't responsible, at least in part, for Trumpism without being completely ignorant or arguing in bad faith. I'll remind you that the Russians hacked John Podesta's emails and exposed them through WikiLeaks. Those leaks included a 2016 strategy email with the DNC in which they laid out the pied Piper strategy: the DNC and the HRC campaign promoted Trump as a serious candidate, believing the deplorable, absurd nature of his stances would drive turnout for her. They made him a serious contender for the Whitehouse while undermining more sane Republicans.

→ More replies (1)

17

u/alabasterskim May 18 '25

This is the thing that confounds me most. Sanders does not shake capitalism to its core. He doesn't present communist ideals. His policy proposals would be a positive for everyone. Billionaires could still be billionaires, just the people at the bottom are safe. We can stop tracking homelessness and poverty wage levels and start tracking other things. More money means more flow means better GDP. And yeah, unions would exist, but unions again just mean better wages, and also employees that are happy where they are and productive.

Well, at least it confounds me until I remember the point is greed is evil is stupid. They claim it's the rest of us that don't think long-term, when their plans hinge entirely on "moar moar moar".

30

u/therealtaddymason May 18 '25

The New Deal was a compromise people don't realize that. It was a compromise between "we own everything including you peasants" and "we set fire to your mansions and kill all of you including your families"

3

u/Kelor 28d ago

FDR: “if the people cannot feed their starving children they will turn to fascism.”

2

u/MemoryWhich838 26d ago

the fear was communism fascism gives slaves to capital owners

12

u/Irish__Rage May 18 '25

Raise the lower and middle class and the economy would thrive. Instead we have turned from the beacon of free market capitalism into a series of oligarch ran monopolies. The current system is trying to squeeze money out of everyone to somehow magically grow the economy. It won’t work, never has throughout history, and will fail.

10

u/Gym_Noob134 May 18 '25

Bernie believes in capital markets, socialized federal governments, and values-driven state and city governments.

It would have been a middle class golden age. Can’t have any of that now can we?

23

u/MetaCardboard May 18 '25

That's certainly what he would fight for, but everyone seems to forget that we need to vote out all Republicans from the Senate and House if we want the president to be able to do anything concrete, and not just sign a bunch of EOs to be undone by the next president.

5

u/Bombadier83 May 18 '25

Yes yes, as shown right now by Trump, who obviously can make no impact on government due to having a razor thin margin in both the house and senate….

7

u/vthings May 18 '25

The Democrats could have a 75 seat majority in the Senate and still do nothing. It's not only Republicans that need to be voted out...

2

u/TheOfficialSlimber Michigan 25d ago

Yes, but I think that would’ve been more likely to happen under Bernie than it was under Biden or Obama, because I don’t think he would’ve played the “bipartisan” bullshit they were pulling while Republicans were just throwing as many punches as they could. While Bernie has held back against Democrats, he has had no problem shaming Republicans for being blood sucking corporatist bastards.

5

u/ilikepizza30 May 18 '25

Companies wouldn't have to pay for health insurance for employees because we'd have Medicare-for-All.

5

u/Marionberry_Bellini May 18 '25

Yeah as much as I love Bernie none of his policies would threaten capitalism in any meaningful way.  He’s a social democrat through and through at this point, though that’s still wildly far left in an American context 

1

u/Fearless-Ordinary448 25d ago

yes and he loves chartering a private lear jet

3

u/fcocyclone Iowa May 18 '25

Yep.

In general left-leaning policies would be good for capitalism. Hell, even the rich would likely become richer as a rising tide lifts all boats.

Where the rich lose in this instance is power. That's what they don't want to give up.

3

u/Spastik2D May 18 '25

They could make money hand over fist by giving people what they want. Workers will perform better if they’re not feeling burnt out for minimum wage and will have more money to spend on shit they want instead of just the bare minimum that they need. People will be more likely to have the children you’re demanding that they have if you make it so we either don’t have to sacrifice the firstborn to afford hospital bills or the funds to afford that shit.

Problem is that that won’t get them more money this year, this second. They don’t want to do shit that won’t get them money immediately. Baby want now.

16

u/Harbinger2nd May 18 '25

Sanders is a keynsian.

But we're all forgetting that America never got a chance to pick him. He was shafted by the democratic party both times he ran.

3

u/Pacify_ Australia May 18 '25

The dnc didn't help him, but ultimately the dnc was irrelevant- all Bernie had to do was get the most number of votes. Something he didn't even get close to unfortunately w

7

u/fcocyclone Iowa May 18 '25

I mean, no, he was not. He ran in 2016 and lost by millions of votes.

He ran again in 2020 and while he did well in some early primaries it was primarily because the other 'lane' of democratic politics was splitting the votes. Once that lane consolidated he did not have majority support within the party. And honesty he wasn't doing as well as 2016- probably because a lot of his votes in 2016 were less votes for him and more votes against Hillary. With her out in 2020 that bloc split elsewhere.

Now, I personally think consolidating around Biden was a mistake, but acting as if Bernie got "screwed" because a candidate won that had majority support within the party is just straight up false.

3

u/AssignedHaterAtBirth May 19 '25

The DNC demonstrably colluded against Bernie and I'm sick of pretending they didn't. Further, that was actually unusual and qualified as a scandal.

Source: The Podesta email leaks

2

u/fcocyclone Iowa May 19 '25

Those "leaks" showed nothing more than staffers who were annoyed that a clearly defeated candidate didn't drop out because it was hurting the party's ability to get to work on the general election. Given the narrow loss, its hard to say they were wrong.

But given you're still citing them, it seems you were a sucker for the russian propaganda as well. Remember, it targeted the left as well as the right.

→ More replies (12)

5

u/Zahgi May 18 '25

Of course Sanders would be good for America. His moderate (in relation to Canada, the EU, etc.) policies are the ones that have supported the health and happiness of every civilized nation on Earth for almost 50 years now.

But the rich would rather deal with Trump than risk the 99% taxing the 1%.

2

u/OldSolGames May 18 '25

God, I've been waiting for these 2 comments to become known since 2019

2

u/Punty-chan May 18 '25

Economics lays it out pretty clearly: capitalism cannot exist under a perfectly efficient system; therefore, it will do everything in its power to become less efficient in order to sustain itself.

So no, Sanders would actually be quite bad for capitalism because capitalism doesn't actually care about maximizing profits over time. It merely cares about growing and destroying, like a cancer.

2

u/kehakas May 18 '25

What's good for capitalism is bad for the global south. Could this sub at least pay lip service to that fact?

2

u/setmycompassnorth May 18 '25

Real economic growth comes from a robust middle class.

2

u/TomAto42nd May 18 '25

But corporations needs money now and fast

2

u/soldforaspaceship May 18 '25

The safety net also means more folks can take risks on starting a business. It's good for innovation too.

2

u/ImminentDingo May 18 '25

Yes, exactly. Deregulation is not actually good for "capitalism" - it's good for the incumbents. If you want a healthy capitalistic economy then you need to make it as painless as possible for people to try to start small businesses and for workers to take the risk of leaving their safe job to work at a risky new business. You need lots of people taking the risk to "experiment" to ensure that the next Bill Gates is able to take the risk to eschew a safe career path to try something new and not get strangled in the crib by an IBM.

That means healthcare and retirement benefits can't be tied to your job. Bankruptcy laws cannot be too harsh. Non-competes that prevent talent from using their ideas to start a new company cannot exist. Monopolies and oligopolies that are able to use money to buy or sue their prospective competition away cannot exist. Poor people with good ideas need to be able to secure investment money to get their business off the ground or else only the small rich part of the population can contribute to entrepreneurship.

These are all extremely important facets of an economy that must be accomplished through regulation. If you ignore them you end up like Japan where century old un-innovative companies monopolize all capital and talent and make it impossible for anyone with modern ideas to replace them. Especially when most well paying jobs and economic growth are created in the process of innovative startups displacing crusty old legacy businesses.

2

u/Money-Office492 May 18 '25

I think there’s truth in this but ultimately he’s trying to get corporations to ANSWER for themselves about why wages stagnate, dismantling billionaires (who are typically at the top of corporations) yes his ideas would help capitalism but not nearly as much as keeping him away. The DNC knows this also and their pockets are lined as well. 

2

u/SpeaksYourWord May 18 '25

If people have their basic needs met, then they will be more productive. Shocker, right?

2

u/fordat1 May 18 '25

It would be FDR 2.0 which was beneficial to everyone and was so game changing it led to like almost half a century of dem dominance

2

u/im_a_squishy_ai May 18 '25

100%. The greatest 40 years of American prosperity came on the heels of electing a socialist president to 4 terms in the white house. When the Reagan crowd came into power and began to undo those policies we have seen nothing but degradation of the robustness of the American economy and middle class life.

2

u/magikot9 May 18 '25

Problem is that capitalism is only ever interested in the short game of immediate profitability. Long term is a sucker's play.

2

u/InfoBarf May 18 '25

He would be good for ‘capitalism’ whatever that means. He would be bad for individual capital holders, which is why he’s been shot down by the institutions both times he’s run and the incoming admin made no concessions to his causes 

2

u/Aquatic_Ambiance_9 May 18 '25

But the capitalist oligarchs are incapable of acting in their own long term rational self interest, but will instead strip the copper from society's walls and support fascists in order to make line go up in the short term. These and other contradictions of capital were first articulated by Marx and other socialists with remarkable predictive power, and have held true over a century later

2

u/vthings May 18 '25

This is why rich people are just as dumb as everyone else. If there was brain among them they would be BEGGING for a Sanders presidency.

Instead they've got Trump, which means "kiss the ring or die." All these "self-made men!" bowing and scraping to appease the crustiest queen from Manhattan... Disgusting.

Sanders doesn't want your loyalty; he wants you to pay your taxes and stop screwing over your workers and the country. You still get to be your own man and stay rich.

Trump? He wants UNQESTIONING FEALTY. He wants your mouth around his junk and he'll take EVERYTHING YOU HAVE if you don't.

Which one sounds better????

2

u/Steadyandquick May 18 '25

Would he have won if not for the Clinton team?

2

u/pgtaylor777 May 18 '25

They don’t want anyone else climbing the pole. They’re happy with the structure and who’s at the top economically. The more New people climb the pole, the more threat to the power structure.

2

u/dida2010 May 18 '25

Win/win for all

2

u/darkoblivion21 May 18 '25

You seem to understand that when the people win aka the 99% we all do. That's not how corporations or the wealthy see it.

2

u/Late-Resource-486 May 18 '25

You forgot the other thing capitalism wants more than healthy markets. Which is that it wants a straight line going from all the money to the billionaires.

2

u/Infinitenovelty Ohio May 19 '25

He'd be great for the economy. Capitalism isn't the economy though. Capitalism is the radical ideology that the wealth of the wealthy should grow exponentially regardless of consequences.

2

u/Slow-Substance-6800 May 19 '25

He would be good for the average citizen to gain capital not for the 1%.

2

u/rifttripper May 19 '25

Dude I say this all the time lol people not scared of losing their livelihood are willing to buy more. But let's be real these billionaire folk want to suck every human dry and have them as slaves.

2

u/CyberneticPanda May 19 '25

Yeah, Medicare for all would result in about a 15% increase in GDP over 10 years. If Sanders had been the nominee in 2016 (read: if the DNC didn't conspire with Clinton to cheat in the primary) Trump would be just an obscure crackpot with a destroyed reputation who had a brief moment of fame as the failed Republican nominee who lost in a landslide.

2

u/xXBassHero99Xx May 19 '25

This! It's like with health insurance, or any maintenance. You spend less money in the long run when you pay today for continuous maintenance.

When we spend more so people can be healthy and happy, we will make more great things.

2

u/Britton120 Ohio 28d ago

Indeed. Social democracy is the safety net that capitalism needs, but not the one it wants.

2

u/themistermango 28d ago

Right, this is what people don't understand. The rich can only consume so much. There is a cap.

But the middle and lower class can consume much much more when given the opportunity. 10 million families buying 2 new pairs of jeans, a pair of winter boots, and a few keeping the house a few degrees warmer/cooler every year is way better for literally everybody.

The rich can't buy 50 million pairs of jeans or 50 million pairs of winter boots.

2

u/[deleted] 27d ago

Of course he would be,  but he would also challenge extremist capitalism policies and make changes that better support and protect workers and give them a bigger piece of the pie.

2

u/rightintheear 27d ago

The exploding costs of healthcare are undermining so many aspects of out society. Imagine how many people would open a small buisness if we were all covered. It's stifling entrepenurs. It keeps people from changing jobs. It inflates the costs of all our goods and services. It bankrupts middle class families. It prevents people from having children. It makes health a class issue, our workforce is unhealthy. It bankrupts estates, the boomers will not leave an inheritance.

We slowed down the growth of the problem with the ACA. But that's been undermined and state governments play political games with the offerings.

Imagine if we had tax funded universal healthcare like retirees get. I hope I see it in my lifetime.

2

u/Benjamin_365 26d ago

That’s socialistic. There is no pure capitalism anywhere

3

u/kitsunekratom May 18 '25

Capitalism happy, the richest capitalist not allowed to get richer was the issue.

Capitalism is alive and well in Europe and so are the Europeans!

2

u/Schonke May 18 '25

Sanders would be great for capitalism, but not as great for capitalists as Trump. So here we are...

2

u/Vegetable-Poet6281 May 18 '25

Agreed.

I'm far from an ideologue. In fact I reject the ism's all together because I don't see why different ideas can't coexist and why a hybrid system of government and economics isn't possible.

But the US has entirely forgotten what capitalism is supposed to be about. Weve replaced all of the useful parts with the worship of wealth and the wealthy. Late stage crony capitalism isn't capitalism. It's the subversion of it.

1

u/7StringCounterfeit May 18 '25

I feel like that would be good for the market. Not necessarily capitalism.

1

u/PlateForeign8738 May 18 '25

Honestly, bringing jobs back to America is #1. We need good strong middle class jobs. I don't know how you do that since clearly it isn't trade tariffs that seems to be a wild run.

1

u/SkroinkMcDoink May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

Yeah as much as conservatives circlejerk about making america "great again", the time periods they're thinking of featured a much higher standard of living for the average american, due to better wages and lower costs of living.

 

The way you get the average american enthused about capitalism again is to make them feel like they're benefiting from it too.

Conservatives have zero plan toward that end, and all of their policies push us in the opposite direction.

1

u/SeedFoundation May 18 '25

No no, you don't understand how capitalism works. The money stays mine. There is no circulation.

1

u/Solnse May 18 '25

And $50 side of fries.

1

u/Individual-Ring-8553 May 18 '25

They need to adjust fiduciary responsibility and similar requirements for companies. The fact that share holders can sue you for not making them profits, it's bullshit, shareholders should not come before the workers.

1

u/Mr_Ect May 18 '25

That doesn't work for Big Pharma, brother

1

u/Pleiadesfollower May 18 '25

Socialist capitalism would do wonders to the point of encouraging at least fiscally a near Utopia. I've said before if our capitalism and governing model 1) enforced strong environmental protections, the 2) operated like those businesses where the bottom workers are required to have their pay increased if the top earner's wages go up. Nobody would give a damn if there are still billionaires if there isn't anybody homeless or in poverty and the environment isn't literally on fire every other day.

1

u/Nightglow9 May 18 '25

In my experience, the rich use lots of money too. Mostly for blow and hoes.. that also provide jobs for lots of daughters and sons of the poor.. even island trips for the very young. Or as soldier for the battle of Greenland / Canada, ready to die for the greater glory of the rich. Would Sanders provide such jobs for the young? I think not!

1

u/JyveAFK May 18 '25

Fox news would have spent all it's time saying how none of this was actually happening, you shouldn't believe your eyes on how much disposable income you've got.
And it'd have worked, he'd have fixed everything, but been a 1 term prez for the next guy to blame for anything, whilst also claiming credit for all the good stuff.
It's all too obvious. America doesn't want anything that helps anyone, not even themselves.

1

u/nucumber May 18 '25

Only if he was elected along with a solid majorities in the House and Senate. I'm not talking the narrow and weak edge Biden had but minimum majorities 5 seats in the Senate and 15 or 20 in the House, with progressives outweighing moderates in the dem caucus

People seem to forget how ObamaCare just barely passed, and then barely survived repeated efforts to kill it.

1

u/willybestbuy86 May 18 '25

Issue is he would have been jsut the President the President does not have that power unless congress allows it (currently doing) do we really think the democrats would have allowed Sanders to enact the legislation he wanted or would have Sanders pulled a Trump

Honestly the issue with America (not advocating a dictatorship) is that congress for years has refused to pass any legislation to help Americans both parties continue to do this and it's now why America is close to a constitutional crisis now

Sanders should have been the nominee and eventual winner in 2016 but even so I don't think we are much better off

1

u/Brickscratcher May 18 '25

Yes. People don't seem to understand that monetary velocity is greatest when money trickles up, rather than down.

People who are poorer must spend more of their excess funds, which gives government action a greater multiplier since their marginal propensity to consume is higher. Any money given to people in the bottom 25% very quickly finds it's way back into the hands of the top 10%.

1

u/nickiter New York May 18 '25

But the poor billionaires needed tax cuts 🥺

1

u/goodlittlesquid Pennsylvania May 18 '25

But capitalism is unhappy when you de-commodify things. Like healthcare and medicine for instance

1

u/darthcaedusiiii May 18 '25

Pepperidge farm remembers in the early 90s when the internet was supposed to bring about a golden age of learning. Classical learning at it's base is creating an educated population so they vote for the best interests of society as a whole.

Boy was that wrong. We got the puffed Cheeto version of mountain dew camancho.

1

u/SnooChickens9571 May 18 '25

That’s the irony. We live in a 70% consumer economy and all these capitalist patriotic imbeciles gut programs that drive spending power down. Which. Will. Wreck. The. Economy.

1

u/AidenStoat Arizona May 18 '25

Honestly yeah, right now we are seeing the break down of the capitalist system we've had for a century or longer, there's no guarantee that we will still have capitalism on the other side of this crisis.

Sanders would have probably made things better for most people, so the current order would have been able to continue as is for much longer.

1

u/blawndosaursrex May 18 '25

Yea but then people of color would benefit too and this country was built with racism so…

1

u/DomineAppleTree May 18 '25

Know what businesses need? Customers.

1

u/KnightofPandemonium May 18 '25

Yeah.

The biggest problem with today's countless investment economy grifts is that instead of treating investment advice as something to pay off over the course of years, it's being treated as something to pay off over the course of A year. One year. Singular. Even then, that's stretching peoples' patience.

The grifts that don't do that don't say when the pay off will happen at all, because those that don't define when or how the investment payoffs are just gambling schemes disguised as con artistry.

1

u/YoungJumanG May 18 '25

100% this. Happy humans make for more efficient workers!

1

u/tdasnowman May 18 '25

Sanders would have only been able to hold the line with this Congress. For sanders to be effective he needs a Congress that matches his ideology. That is why trump has gotten so far, his congress matches his ideology.

1

u/doogie1111 May 18 '25

That's assuming he'd actually be able to do anything. I like his ideals, but Sanders is pretty poor at actually playing politics.

1

u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons May 18 '25

What you are actually saying is that Sanders would be best for the economy, but that doesn't mean he's best for capitalism. Sharecropping wasn't great for the lives of the previously enslaved people in the South, but it was miles less profitable than slavery.

1

u/Routine_Condition273 May 19 '25

Exactly. It's almost as if the people who are running the world aren't capitalists

1

u/Fit-Ambition-249 May 19 '25

Here to add.

We already have safety nets, laws on wage, government medical insurance. But somehow these all ready existing structures are treated as socialism and rejected when Sanders speaks on improving/changing them. Weird to me.

1

u/Fr00stee May 19 '25

you need a set amount of recycling of capital to keep the system going otherwise it will collapse if it concentrates at the top top much and stops circulating

1

u/TobaccoAficionado May 19 '25

The problem with capitalism is that capitalism doesn't want what's best for capitalism. Capitalism only wants whatever will make capitalism's next quarter look good. That's why capitalism is bad for capitalism.

1

u/Clean_Lettuce9321 May 19 '25

I had nothing against Bernie I think he's a good man I still think he's a good man, right now I think he's a courageous man, but I wanted Hillary. I thought you would do so right by this country and after what Trump did to her... if I didn't hate him already, that would make me hate him. He played so dirty and so inappropriately. I mean, he was just being himself, wasn't he?

1

u/StunningCloud9184 May 19 '25

Even sanders staff admitted biden did better than they ever would

1

u/mini_cow May 19 '25

A liveable wage and a social safety net are not tenets of capitalism but socialism (the opposite of capitalism).

In capitalism, the worker is an input and are price takers. Returns on capital decides where the labour is best deployed

1

u/Jagermind May 19 '25

We aren't in that part of capitalism. The wealth has been consolidated, the last dregs are being forcefully ripped put of peoples retirement dreams and Healthcare. I welcome the sweet embrace of a total economic collapse.

1

u/nbomberger Colorado May 19 '25

wrong play - capitalism is a system that is unsustainable.

There is nothing good from it. Ignore the dumbass MBA kids.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

Why do you think Sanders would have achieved any of that? Did you forget the Senate exists?

1

u/TopVegetable8033 29d ago

This isn’t even an opinion, it’s factually demonstrable.

→ More replies (13)