Neither social democrat nor Trump can elude the Establishment's might (prog style)

[C C]

In addition to its intolerance of a social democrat like Sanders winning, the Establishment's immune response to Trump (since 2016) has reinvigorated it to such overbearing heights that now nothing may prevail against its wrath and manipulation (as would be exemplified should the GOP be devastated in a figurative Bloodbath November with respect to elections).
- - - - - - - - - -

INTRO: Bernie Sanders explains how the Democratic Party plotted to rob him of winning the Party's nomination after he won the first few primaries.

It was always rigged
https://youtu.be/diwdfsTRd18

VIDEO EXCERPTS: The Establishment got very, very nervous. There were a whole lot of candidates in the Democratic primary, and they said hey, be a good idea if you all dropped out. [...] I won the popular vote in Iowa, I won the New Hampshire Primary. I won the Nevada Primary. Those were the first three, and then front pages of the New York Times conveyed that the Democratic establishment was very nervous. Bernie Sanders could win the whole thing.

There were like 15 different candidates, and they were splitting up the vote, and that's how I was not necessarily getting over 50%, but I was getting more than other people. So I was on the way to victory, and they said. 'Look ,Bernie shouldn't be the candidate. We don't want him to be the candidate: Drop out.' And then a lot of people in one or two days dropped out, [Joe Biden remaining and ascending]...

[...] if you're asking me are we a democracy, in one sense we are ... You can run for office, you can raise your issues. On the other hand, in terms of who has the real power [to get a candidate elected]... Money people do.

[...] I use the term oligarchy. Oligarchy is a society where small numbers of very wealthy people control the economic and political life of the country...

[...] Host: I feel like, to me, it feels like an almost privatized communism.

Sanders: In a way, that's right. That's a very good point. That's an interesting way of looking at it.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/diwdfsTRd18

[C C]

Bernie Sanders explains how the Democratic Party plotted to rob him of winning the Party's nomination after he won the first few primaries.

But it seems to be the extended Establishment itself that he references... Especially that "dastardly" capitalist aspect.

Let's clarify all this, starting first with Bernie himself...

From Building DSA with Bernie (2019): "Bernie Sanders is the first viable national candidate in living memory who identifies as a democratic socialist, and his campaign has already mobilized masses of working people."

Obviously the "Establishment" that was bandied about back in the days of the New Left -- that challenged by protesting youth of that era -- was at the very least right-center (given its police reactions to the activism, and even if excluding Southern Democrats). But since the '60s and '70s, the Establishment absorbed that counterculture and has conversely become at the very least left-center.

So today we have a progressive, rehabilitated Establishment, collectively constituted of:

the Party, the mainstream press/media, the entertainment industry, the academic world, that major part of the business community that is progressive supporting, etc.

So given the decades of change, why would Bernie be referencing the contemporary Establishment in a negative way?

Setting aside the many efforts to muddle-up "progressive" or "progressivism" with collectivist values (much as "liberalism" in the first half of the 20th century was butchered-up from its original Enlightenment context, to reflect "welfare state" affairs)...

Traditional progressives are not anti-capitalist and anti-Western like their fully left-wing brethren. They merely utilize social justice issues, just as capitalism historically and normally exploits, recruits, or assimilates any do-gooder propaganda and movements (from religious to secular-political) for its marketing and public-image posturing purposes.

So this is the background to apprehend Sanders' "money people" in, as well as the bizarre "privatized communism" metaphor thrown in at the end. Which seemingly conflates the classic left [Marxism] with progressive capitalism, rather than the contemporary Critical Theory offshoot agendas. (For instance, the unscrupulous Soviet-era bureaucrats could be viewed as the proto-versions of oligarchs that arose slash continued after the system collapse in Russia.)