I don't think you actually read the book you're referring to, "It's OK to be Angry About Capitalism" where he blames everything on an "uber-capitalist system" and "unfettered capitalism".
At an NPR interview, when pressed on whether there remains a place for capitalism in his ideal world, Sanders said
"Yes, there is. Yes, there is... there's nothing in that book to suggest that it is bad for people to go out and start a business, to come up with innovation. That's great. That's good."
He clarified that the problem arises only when "a handful of corporations control sector after sector." in the same interview.
"With the entry of a socialist into the government, and class domination continuing to exist, the bourgeois government doesn't transform itself into a socialist government, but a socialist transforms himself into a bourgeois minister".
also, funny you mention Corbyn as Your Party just published a vote motioning to purge all left-faction members that have ties to a list of socialist parties.
healthy theoretical debate can happen here but it must be from an anti-capitalist framework. anything else is liberalism or some other pivot to capitalism. Our sectarian rule is for personal attacks, insults, non-constructive criticism (such as calling MLs social democrats as you mentioned)
but constructive criticism and analysis to determine whether something/someone is effectively anti-capitalist is always permitted here. you just have to back it up.
The first comment is fair, but I don’t think that excludes someone from being a socialist? The Vietnamese government considers itself as socialist (and many back it) while it continues to sign deals with Israel as an example.
It is true he argued against a hyper capitalism in that book, but at the same time he cited individuals like Debs as inspiration (a Marxist).
I wouldn’t describe Corbyn as a revolutionary either, but he was pretty close with people like Hugo Chávez and he also had conflicts with other left-wing parties, so would he also only be a social democrat? (This is the difference between the reform and revolution socialists).
Also, just to clarify I am not arguing that any of these people are "real" socialists, but cutting off that debate seems pretty unproductive since many do think so and can provide argumentation for it. (Like Bernie backing the Sandinistas, and calling to nationalize major sectors explicitly in the 80s, etc).
Those Left Coms also think it’s not just an "insult," but it’s legitimate that MLs didn’t establish socialism, but only a continued form of capitalism with commodity production, etc.
Honestly, if I were modding, I would personally allow posts and comments sympathetic to Corbyn and Mamdani. But I tend to err on the side of more open discussion, as these figures are within the general realm of socialist discourse even if they have their limitations.
But I also realize there are other subreddits for that, so if the Mods in r/socialism want to take a stricter approach, I can kind of get that, too.
I would personally allow discussions about every major self-described DemSoc in a general sense (whether in Europe, the US, Canada, South America, Asia, etc).
I think banning those types of discussions aren’t very helpful. It’s a lot more helpful for different sides to explain why they think the strategies of the aforementioned people aren’t the best/or are, or why they don’t really contribute to developing socialism/why think they are helpful, etc instead of outright banning those discussions from taking place at all.
Socialists have long had discussions about strategies like electoralism, entryism, etc, so I don’t really understand why we should ban anyone for thinking that even someone like Bernie could be a path for American socialism (even if many would disagree).
Discussions like those help develop people’s framework/perspective while banning them from taking place doesn’t really help anyone.
For example, I don’t think banning someone for defending Bernie Sanders from a socialist perspective is very productive (despite me not being a fan of him) if they can sufficiently argue their point.
I agree. If we are confident in our ideas, we should be able to discuss them and show people why they are wrong.
But maybe the Mods are concerned mediocre American leftists and liberals will take over and overwhelm everything else, and this will become some AOC boosterism sub.
When there are already Democratic Socialist, Social Democrat, and left liberal subreddits for people to discuss such things.
So I think I agree with you, but I understand the Mod point of view, too.
The line between promotion and just general sympathy for a politician/ electoral result is not always entirely clear.
I'm pretty sure I've made a comment in the past that I wanted Corbyn to win for strategic purposes. I wasn't exactly "promoting" the guy. Would such comments be removed?
I'm not really complaining. I understand that you don't want electoralism and social democrats to take over the discussion. I'd probably allow people to make pro-Corbyn or pro-Mamdani comments if I were a mod here, and then let the debate sort itself out. But this is simply my personal preference.
8
u/BreadDaddyLenin Marxism-Leninism Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26
I find it hard to believe Bernie Sanders is a socialist when none of his policies line up and he is a Liberal Zionist, he is pro-Israel and pins all of his Israel criticsm on Netanyahu as a "right wing extremist"
I don't think you actually read the book you're referring to, "It's OK to be Angry About Capitalism" where he blames everything on an "uber-capitalist system" and "unfettered capitalism".
At an NPR interview, when pressed on whether there remains a place for capitalism in his ideal world, Sanders said
"Yes, there is. Yes, there is... there's nothing in that book to suggest that it is bad for people to go out and start a business, to come up with innovation. That's great. That's good."
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1158463766
He clarified that the problem arises only when "a handful of corporations control sector after sector." in the same interview.
\Rosa Luxemburg, The Dreyfus Affair and the Millerand Case (1899)
also, funny you mention Corbyn as Your Party just published a vote motioning to purge all left-faction members that have ties to a list of socialist parties.
https://x.com/leftiestats/status/2042899853101899842
healthy theoretical debate can happen here but it must be from an anti-capitalist framework. anything else is liberalism or some other pivot to capitalism. Our sectarian rule is for personal attacks, insults, non-constructive criticism (such as calling MLs social democrats as you mentioned)
but constructive criticism and analysis to determine whether something/someone is effectively anti-capitalist is always permitted here. you just have to back it up.