I’ve been reading a very good book about Finnish independence and civil war. Time after time, the Reds snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. For all their talk of revolution, they were too timid to enact one. They wanted history to take care of it for them (as they believed their their guiding Marxist theories foretold). Their biggest mistake was backing down from the general strike that preceded and helped precipitate the civil war. They had a genuine surge of worker revolutionary sentiment on their hands. Instead of feeling empowered, they felt scared. Fundamentally, they did not trust the workers. Fundamentally, at all pivotal moments, they acted like the bourgeoisie they supposedly wanted to overthrow. #
(I’m talking here specifically of the socialist political leadership, mostly the SDP elite. The revolutionary workers councils and red guards and union members were all much more strident, although at one key moment one of the councils did lose its nerve as well, as I recall.)#
This makes me think of Bernie Sanders. In his backbone and ideological consistency, Sanders is a giant among senators and within the whole Congress. As a presidential candidate he repeatedly prioritized preserving personal relationships and his self conception — what I believe he’d call his principles — over winning.#
He pulled the punch when asked about a second order Hillary Clinton coverup, and was applauded. But the scandal (however minor, relatively) pointed to a real and repeated issue for the candidate, and a more eager opponent seized on it to decisive effect in the general election. #
He put his friendship with Joe Biden over his opposition to much of what Biden stood for, and refused to meaningfully draw contrasts between his (often much more popular) positions and Biden’s. This despite accepting huge amounts of individual donations from ordinary people who wanted him to win. In the end the establishment (of course) still conspired against his candidacy to an extraordinary degree, for the second time. #
None of which is to say he’s a bad person or politician — he’s admirable, in fact — but he’s not a good model for a winning leftist presidential candidate. To be honest someone like that will resemble Trump in many aspects of their campaign approach, along with Bernie and others. #
The example of Finland in 1917/1918 makes clear the cost of niceties, decorum, and using ego and precious maxims to guide tactics. It is a ruin. #
I’ve been reading a very good book about Finnish independence and civil war. Time after time, the Reds snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. For all their talk of revolution, they were too timid to enact one. They wanted history to take care of it for them (as they believed their their guiding Marxist theories foretold). Their biggest mistake was backing down from the general strike that preceded and helped precipitate the civil war. They had a genuine surge of worker revolutionary sentiment on their hands. Instead of feeling empowered, they felt scared. Fundamentally, they did not trust the workers. Fundamentally, at all pivotal moments, they acted like the bourgeoisie they supposedly wanted to overthrow. #
(I’m talking here specifically of the socialist political leadership, mostly the SDP elite. The revolutionary workers councils and red guards and union members were all much more strident, although at one key moment one of the councils did lose its nerve as well, as I recall.)#
This makes me think of Bernie Sanders. In his backbone and ideological consistency, Sanders is a giant among senators and within the whole Congress. As a presidential candidate he repeatedly prioritized preserving personal relationships and his self conception — what I believe he’d call his principles — over winning.#
He pulled the punch when asked about a second order Hillary Clinton coverup, and was applauded. But the scandal (however minor, relatively) pointed to a real and repeated issue for the candidate, and a more eager opponent seized on it to decisive effect in the general election. #
He put his friendship with Joe Biden over his opposition to much of what Biden stood for, and refused to meaningfully draw contrasts between his (often much more popular) positions and Biden’s. This despite accepting huge amounts of individual donations from ordinary people who wanted him to win. In the end the establishment (of course) still conspired against his candidacy to an extraordinary degree, for the second time. #
None of which is to say he’s a bad person or politician — he’s admirable, in fact — but he’s not a good model for a winning leftist presidential candidate. To be honest someone like that will resemble Trump in many aspects of their campaign approach, along with Bernie and others. #
The example of Finland in 1917/1918 makes clear the cost of niceties, decorum, and using ego and precious maxims to guide tactics. It is a ruin. #
Copyright 2021, Ryan Tate
Last update: Wednesday December 29, 2021; 1:52 PM EST.