Is It R.I.P For The Bern Movement Yet? Don’t Blame Him: Blame The Left.

Is it RI.P. for the Bern movement yet?

I certainly hope so; any movement named after an establishment politician is a bogus movement, IMHO. I don’t recall there was any ‘MLK movement’ or a ‘Malcolm X movement’ in the 50s and 60s. Hopefully, we can all go back home from our vacation at the ‘Feel The Bern’  theme park and get back to reality. But will we ever?

You can expect the traditional analysis about why Sanders failed in his ‘revolution’. In this blog I have focused not only on him but on the left itself. The left has itself to blame for their disappointment with Sanders’ revolution. But you will NOT find ONE article where the left takes a look at itself and takes responsibility for this recent ‘revolution’ debacle. They bought into his mystical aura (never tells a lie) and into his ‘moral economy’ or moral ‘revolution’.

UPDATE: The ‘Sanders fooled us‘ parade started as soon as he lost NY. And as I say here, the left doesn’t look at itself: they were ‘fooled’ by Sanders, just as they were by Obama. This Counter Punch article ( April 22, 2016 Bernie Sanders: the Candidate Who Came in From the Cold by Jeffrey St. Clairis) is excellent at its criticism of Sanders. It says what I said in this blog, including that Sanders used his followers when he could have used their energy to put the fear in the oligarchs hearts, like taking the (fictitious) 27k people rally in NY’s Washington Square park to march to Wall Street. Worse:  NOW they come with the true facts about Sanders’ the imperialist hawk. All that I said in this blog is now been ‘uncovered’ by the disappointed and disaffected professional left.

Then there is this article at Politico, again, sucker leftists taken for a ride:

Bernie’s Failed Revolution
How Sanders fell short of changing the Democratic Party.
By Bill Scher April 20, 2016

As I asked in my post about the left’s failure to learn from the Obama ‘movement’, What happens now to all that anger and ‘hope’ the Sandersnistas  burned for him, provoking Trump’s followers at those rallies, even getting physically hurt? Don’t expect Sanders to channel that energy into more effective tasks after he wraps up his campaign.

There are links on this blog to Bernie’s pre-primaries statements about how he is “now” part of the democratic establishment, that he will run as a democrat from now on, and that he would not only not hurt the party, but will also actively protect it. Protect it from what? For one thing, protect it from any efforts at the creation of a third-party. That alone and on itself should be enough cause of mayor disappointment and depression to his berniebots: the locus of the ‘revolution’ was restricted to the democratic party.

And because of that, the ‘feel the bern’ movement is heading towards the same leftist’ graveyard where they buried their Obama Hope and Change movement after he won the elections.

So what went wrong this time?

The answer to that question will be debated by professional political analysts and leftists  for months to come, if not years. I offered for your consideration the points in  the posts about the left and their inability to learn from recent history. Now I add a few more elements.

What is a ‘Movement’?

There are many definitions, but, to me, if there is no coordination of any kind, then it is an anarchy movement. The OWS and the BLM movements reject authority and hierarchical organization, and don’t have any philosophical base. Who benefits from that ‘arrangement’? The oligarchs, the ‘billionaire class’.

The oligarchs have their own organizations with its own philosophical underpinning. They may be internally divided, after all, they too are humans and can’t agree on everything, but the effectiveness of their organization is seen in that they control all the power in our society. They can get together and organize new ‘grassroots’ movements when necessary for them, disrupt the legitimate ones, use the MSM to vilify and discredit leaders and movements…we are in their hands. If it were not true, we would be living in an Eden.

But the new left eschews ‘traditional’ types of organization and pretend to gain power by ‘will power’. The Bern movement functioned like the OWS and BLM movements. Sanders didn’t create any structure to integrate the ideas of his followers. When he goes back home to Vermont after the primaries, he will be pondering on what to do with his post-feel-the-Bern once-in-a-life-time adventure. He probably will focus on his campaign to be re-elected to the Senate. For sure, he keeps the money he raised, of course; it doesn’t go back to help continue the ‘movement’. It goes to the DNC and the democratic party, and to his Senate campaign effort.

As for the Bern movement, it will probably die with the primaries.

Any movement to come, for at least the next 10 years, will suffer the same prognosis: death by delusion.

Class identity and Sanders’ ‘0.1% of the billionaire class’

I know, class identity sounds so old fashion and passe. Is breathing passé? Is money passé? Is class divisions passé? Is class struggle passé? Reformed capitalism is ‘the new political black’. That didn’t happen by magic, people. The struggle to reform capitalism is the  by-product of the defeat of the working class by the capitalists, that’s all we were left with: try to reform the system, try to make Wall Street and Monsanto grow a heart.

One of the most appalling characteristics of the OWS movement, made painfully patent during these primaries, is that most of them belief that Wall Street can be reformed, they don’t say how, of course. And Sanders losing the primaries is due in part to that NY Daily News interview where he came across as an ineffective leader incapable of giving a simple draft of how he was going to fix that ‘greedy’ institution.

And the fact that Sanders’ followers are ‘threatening’ to vote for Trump shows the limits of that ‘revolutionary’ class consciousness.

Today, the ‘struggle’ is about reforming WS, about ‘consumer protection’.

The working class has become a ‘consumer class’. For that we can thank Sanders and other  ‘leftist’ politicians. It’s not Elizabeth Warren’s fault or any other elected politician; as far as I know she is not a ‘leftist’, she is part of the establishment with a progressive bent, which is fine; we need people like that in Congress. But I expect more from ‘leftists’: they are supposed to know better.  Instead, we get from them Orwellian language.

Orwellian Language

In my post “Bernie’s Fight Against the Billionaire Class is Bad News For Us” (I know, I’m bad at catchy titles) I discuss the ‘historical’ shrinking of the capitalist class we are fighting against.

The Evolution of the Fight Against the Capitalist Class:From Against All of It to Against 0.1% of It.

From about the beginning of the industrial revolution, the working class have fought against the capitalist class, against all of it. Then, from the middle of the 20th century up to 2010, and as evidence of their loss of political power,  ‘we the people’ was wagging  a battle against  a ‘mere’  10% of that class.

Then, in 2011 came the new wave of leftist progressivism in the form of the OWS movement: their fight was reduced to against a bare 1% of the capitalist class. 

Image result for ows against the 1%

Now comes ‘socialist’ Sanders, who has decided that the youngsters should fight against ONLY the 0.1% of the capitalists, and that said class should be known from now on as the ‘billionaire class’, not the capitalist class. Also, a vote for him is a vote “for yourselves” or for the “working family“, not for the working class.


In other words, the last vestiges of the socialist ideology of class identity (capitalist or working class) is finally gone in the new millennium with Sanders’ new brand of ‘socialism’.

Sanders revisionist formulation of who is the enemy of the working class (only the 0.1% of the billionaires), is not based on ignorance or omission, not even on ‘tactic’ to bring the voters into his ‘movement’.

He has almost exclusively identified as the evil class only a portion of Wall Street, “the greediest” elements in it. He seldom mentions any other elements of the capitalist class: the war mongering armament corporations (he has even used police force to defend them from protesters), the surveillance corps, not the globalist health insurance corporations…Only WS is our enemy, per socialist Sanders. His agenda for reforming WS, shall he become president of the USA, reflects clearly his true class alliance.

It’s not to the one  you think.

Next: I’ll finish this ‘assessment ‘ of what went wrong with Sanders’ revolution, and give a more optimistic assessment of what is to come for the leftist movement.

I recommend this article from the Jacobin, it has excellent (from a professional writer, as opposed to this bloger) info about Sanders’ support of the democratic party.

The Problem with Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders’ choice to run as a Democrat means he can’t present a real alternative to Hillary Clinton.


Bernie Sanders And The Left’s Inability to Learn From Recent History (Part 1)


This “Real Hope” acknowledges they were had by their first populist-charismatic leader. So, they try the same recipe… again .

I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2008 over Obama, and I will vote for her over Sanders. For all those Obama-fans, this post may not be of your liking, for I will compare the reasons I had for not voting for him with the reasons I have for not voting for Sanders. The reasons are similar because Sanders is a repeat of what I, may I say,  correctly saw back in 2008.

Let me say something about me: I am not a ‘pure’ democrat; I have voted dem only because there are no viable alternatives to the two-party system. Also, I have been tested in the ‘revolution’ since 1972, having been in the pro-independence movement in Puerto Rico and in the different people’ struggles here in New York City since I moved here in 1982. Thus, I’m speaking as a leftist, not as a member of the democratic party.

When Obama started running in the 2008 democratic primaries, I, like everybody  else, was moved by the possibility that a black man, and a ‘progressive’ at that, had a real chance of making it to the top. But because I had learned not to trust politicians and to research their records instead of taking them for their words, I went and did my research on Obama.

Of course, I was torn because I was also interested in having the first woman running, also with a chance, for the presidency. Her I knew better, most of us did. She was not perfect, but neither has  been any male president of the US.

Soooo, as I started finding reliable info online about Obama not mentioned in the campaign, mostly from interviews he gave,  his appeal to me started to look ‘iffy’, and then things got to the point of ‘oh, no, not you’. The info I found was so damning (in particular his speech at the elitist Hamilton Project think-tank), in my view, that for the first time I opened a blog, me who is not good at English grammar, to share what I had found. The blog is still out there: ‘the obama nightmare’, and so is my grammar. The blog’s title says how bad was what I had found. I will give details at the end of this ‘series’. Let me first present more common-sense material that should have been a clue since day one of their campaign to the left about who these candidates represent.

The Messiah and The  Saint


Both of them: through the primaries with no record and not vetted. Implied in a saintly image is the unstated rule that what this saint says is true and should not be questioned. That’s why ‘berniebots’ get enraged when anyone questions Sanders’ record or don’t support him.

Obama’s campaign was imbued, like Sanders’ today, with that air of mysticism. Idealization of these two politicians is an understatement.


Real votive candles.

You probably remember that the Obama campaign painted a halo around him. He himself spoke of his ‘movement’ as capable of ‘parting the waters’, figuratively speaking, of course?


Obama’s nomination victory speech.

Sanders, we see him portrayed as ‘the only one who tells the truth’, he never lies (despite having been a politician since the 1980s), his record in Congress shows (despite it haven’t been vetted by the MSM nor by his followers) shows that he has only supported bills protecting the downtrodden, and he has never received money from the elite (although it comes indirectly).

the truth

But is he?

All of this is enough to make anyone a SAINT, which is why his followers adore him and pay obeisance to him. Of course, his recent trip to the Vatican and brief meeting with His Sanctity The Pope solidified that saintly image of Sanders. Now Sanders’ statements are taken as “moral economy” and in tune with the Pope’s. How can you argue against him without coming across as a despicable jerk?

As an experienced leftist, I learned not to follow politicians who gladly promote themselves as above the rest of humanity. When I see one doing it, I know he is not only a fake, but a liar and dangerous for the ’cause’.

There should be nothing more anathema to any leftist worthy of calling himself or herself so, than supporting…

  • un-vetted party-establishment candidates,
  • who gladly represent themselves to the working class as mystics
  • and who peddle campaign slogans like ‘hope’, ‘change’, ‘revolution’ and ‘socialism’ with no record of having worked for it in the past.  A job in Congress doesn’t count as working for ‘socialism’, at least not yet.

So, a pitch for sainthood was the first clue to me that Obama, as Sanders today, was working for the oligarchs. But here they are, the American left, drinking the sacramental wine, again.

Populist Candidates For the Downtrodden

Obama ran a populist campaign just as Sanders is doing today (and Trump, but that’s another story). Obama was groomed for his role (as discussed in the other blog) and ran knowing from day one that his was going to be a populist campaign. Sanders, however, was caught by surprise; he didn’t expect the success he is having, no one did.  He just wanted to bring the issues important to the angry youngsters so they would come to the party and stop being so angry; seriously.

The point is that after 9/11 the oligarchs came out of the shadows to take direct control of power. They knew that their cut throat capitalism and thievery was going to destabilize the economy and create anger in the working class; that their thievery could not be hidden anymore. So, they needed new politicians, men who were seen as outside the ‘establishment’, populists who would bring the discontented and the oppressed back into the two-party system and neutralize their righteous anger there. That was Obama first, and now Sanders.

What I have just said can not be new for leftists and socialists. We know what the establishment parties do and for whom they work. As for ‘neutralizing’ the anger…many leftists and socialists agree in that it was Obama who killed the anti-war movement, and the Occupy movement too. How he did it? Well, you can’t argue with your saints, especially when they come at you with the police state to throw blessed peppered spray over your head.

Tomorrow, Part Two: Reel them in and Hillary’s ‘Via Dolorosa’

I will get into the details I had found  about  Obama that made me think he was a bad ‘event’ for the left and the working class.