By A. Shaw
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders fights to win the nomination, as critics ask him why doesn’t he quit and endorse Hillary Clinton.
There are a number of reasons why Sanders doesn’t quit and endorse her.
(1) The race for the DP nomination isn’t over. Clinton hasn’t clinched.
(2) Sanders aims to build a mass movement that parallels his campaign for the Democratic Party (DP) nomination.
(3) The mass movement is different from the Sanders campaign.
Whether Clinton wins or loses the DP race, the outcome of the DP race will not determine anything that belongs to the mass movement.
From the 2015 beginning of the mass movement and campaign, Sanders emphasized that the mass movement, not the Sanders campaign, will continue its operations after the November 2016 general election.
Sanders has never said that the mass movement that parallels his campaign is a part of the DP, like his campaign.
The mass movement is an independent political force outside the DP and campaign is an independent political force within the DP.
Some critics question whether Sanders campaign is independent within  the DP.
Before an opponent clinches the DP nomination, Sanders can either endorse or not endorse the DP opponent. In practice, most losing candidates don’t endorse their opponents.
After an opponent clinches, Sanders can either endorse or not endorse the victorious DPÂ opponent. In practice, most defeated candidates don’t endorse their opponents.
The political independence lies in the right of the candidate to choose whether to endorse or not endorse his or her opponent.
If a candidate chooses to endorse, his choice doesn’t show dependency or lack of independence.
Party rules, especially the rules of bourgeois and left opportunist parties, often forbid its candidates from endorsing candidates who represent OTHER parties.
Some people have difficulty with the difference between “a party” and “another party.”
The function of the Sanders campaign is to win a slice of state power, like for instance the office of USA president.
The function of the mass movement is to train liberal and leftist operatives how to win slices of state power or, in other words, how to win elections.
The training that the mass movement supplies to receptive revolutionaries and other political operatives entails training in both political theory and political practice.
There are a number of elements within both the campaign and mass movement that are at least attempting to perform these complex tasks.
Clinton may or may not win the DP nomination.
If she wins, her campaign for the general election Clinton will then offer splendid opportunities for revolutionaries and other operatives, affiliated with the mass movement, to get additional practical political training, regardless of theoretical differences between revolutionaries and Clinton.
In the Manifesto, Marx and Engels warned the proletariat that the bourgeoisie may prove to be a better source for the type of “weapons” necessary to wage practical politics. Marx and Engels pointed out that sectors of the bourgeoisie may first have to “drag” the proletariat into the political arena where “weapons” of practical politics are commonly used.
Surely, Clinton now represents a sector of the bourgeoisie and, surely, the youth now campaigning as well as fighting in the mass movement for Sanders represent the best of the liberal working and middle classes.
Here are Marx and Engels’ own words on this question of the source of the tools of practical political training:
“In all these battles, it [the bourgeoisie] sees itself compelled
to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag
it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies
the proletariat with its own elements of political and general
education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons
for fighting the bourgeoisie.”
Marx and Engels evidently drew the conclusion that too many riff-raff, who abhor political struggle with an insane passion, infest Left organizations, preventing such organizations from supplying the proletariat with “weapons” necessary for struggle in the political arena