By James Thompson

There has been some recent controversy over whether Hillary Clinton is a progressive. Bernie Sanders has argued that she is a fair weather progressive, but otherwise is a moderate. Hillary Clinton argues that she is a born-again progressive. It appears both views may be distortions of reality.

In its recent article on what is a progressive, the BBC offers this definition “A progressive is someone who wants to see more economic and social equality – and hopes to see more gains in feminism and gay rights. They’re also supportive of social programmes directed by the state – and they’d like social movements to have more power in the US.”

Sen. Sanders has pointed out Clinton’s addiction to Wall Street money and asks whether a progressive can take that much money from the bourgeoisie and fight for the interests of working people. It is a good question.

In a recent town hall meeting in New Hampshire, Anderson Cooper asked Clinton why the special interest groups paid her $675,000 for a few speaking engagements. Clinton looked like a deer caught in a headlight when she was forced to face this question and answered fecklessly “I don’t know. That’s what they offered.”

Working people are not stupid even though Clinton may think they are stupid. It was easy for working people to see through this lame response. Any working person knows that when a wealthy person pays you $675,000 they expect something in return. Any working person knows that wealthy people are not generous. They always want something for their money.

Although Sanders talks about a “political revolution”, it is clear that neither he nor Clinton are revolutionaries. Some view the word “revolution” as another word for change. Lenin defined revolution as the passing of state power from one class to another. Neither Clinton nor Sanders advocate for working people to attain state power. Both advocate reform of the capitalist system so that there is a kinder, gentler capitalism. Anyone who has studied the history of capitalism knows that this is not possible and is a mere flight of fantasy.

Back to the BBC definition of “progressive.” Both Sanders and Clinton give lip service to striving for more economic and social equality-and hopes to see more gains in feminism and gay rights. They are also supportive of social programs directed by the state-and they’d like social movements to have more power in the US. So, according to the BBC definition, both Clinton and Sanders are progressives.

It is important to remember that Sanders also talks about revolution. He is famous for advocating for a more fair distribution of wealth in the USA. He also talks about making healthcare a right and making education accessible to all. These are noble goals, but hardly revolutionary. In effect, Sen. Sanders advocates that the USA start catching up with European countries such as the UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and others who have democratic socialist governments. He does not advocate abolishing capitalism and implementing socialism. He talks about socialism but is not a socialist in the historical sense of the word. He is a socialist who advocates that the people in the US are worthy of living in a country where working people have equal benefits to workers in socialist democracies in Europe. Although some might deem this revolutionary, it is not. It is merely catch up reformism which actually would be very good for the working people in the USA.

Although Clinton has given lip service to certain reforms, she has distinguished herself in her latest campaign to be president of the United States by saying that Sanders proposals are too good for working people and are not feasible because her bourgeois benefactors would not allow them. She’s making good money from the bourgeoisie and anyone can easily see where her loyalties lie.

So, wake up sheeple and Google heads in the USA! The people in Europe did not get universal access to healthcare and education by waiting for the bourgeoisie to give them handouts. They had to fight for every inch of ground that they have gained and have had to continue to fight to keep from losing all that they have gained. The bourgeoisie, especially in the USA, are not known to hand out special treats on silver platters even to their most prized lapdogs.

Working people need to recognize that they are not lapdogs of the bourgeoisie. Working people need to recognize that they are the vast majority of the population in the United States and therefore wield a lot of political power. When working people recognize the power they have, they will unite and fight for what is right.

Sen. Sanders proposals are modest at best. Former secretary Clinton’s positions are reactionary at best.

Working people need to ask themselves if Clinton is correct that Sen. Sanders’ proposals are too good for them. They should also ask themselves, “Which side are you on?”