Bernie Sanders

Zascar

I have to say this guy is a real breath of fresh air for American politics. Many people have not even heard of him - and most others unfortunately say "I like him, but he can't win". However I think that may be changing. He's the only candidate who is not totally bought and sold by the billionaires - he takes no money from corporates or the super PACs - and he wants to get the money out of politics and tackle income inequality. Also has great stances on climate change, healthcare, tax reform, civil rights, education, gun control, and warmongering.

He's organising a real grassroots movement and appealing to the younger generation - hopefully over the next year he can do enough to win the hearts and minds to be in with a chance.

More info:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/theres-something-about-bernie/399740/
http://randomnerds.com/bernie-sanders-for-the-well-intentioned-semi-informed-layperson/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyee_sxJpXc

What do you guys think of him?

Eric Cartman

fixing income inequality is a term that irks me so imo already down a step

on gun control I'm mixed as he doesn't seem to want guns completely gone, but he's very much in favour of taking them away for protection and as a hobby and moving them to a utilitarian agricultural tool only , this i wouldn't agree with.

on tax reform he's far too left for me and is pretty much in favour of the shiner-esque 'tax all da millionaires and dat will fix it' plan .

I admire his avoidance of super-pac's and he's definitely an upstanding respectable guy with a lot of input to give. Would I go for a pint with him - yes , would I elect him as president - no.

Akrasia

Eric Cartman wrote: »

fixing income inequality is a term that irks me so imo already down a step

on gun control I'm mixed as he doesn't seem to want guns completely gone, but he's very much in favour of taking them away for protection and as a hobby and moving them to a utilitarian agricultural tool only , this i wouldn't agree with.

on tax reform he's far too left for me and is pretty much in favour of the shiner-esque 'tax all da millionaires and dat will fix it' plan .

I admire his avoidance of super-pac's and he's definitely an upstanding respectable guy with a lot of input to give. Would I go for a pint with him - yes , would I elect him as president - no.

Income inequality in the U.S. is out of control though.
The real median industrial wage in the U.S. is flat or falling for decades, while the percentage of the wealth controlled by the wealthy 1% has hugely increased.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/17/wealth-gap-upper-middle-income/

BoJack Horseman

Akrasia wrote: »

Income inequality in the U.S. is out of control though.
The real median industrial wage in the U.S. is flat or falling for decades, while the percentage of the wealth controlled by the wealthy 1% has hugely increased.

So you can either:
Confiscate more of this wealth via taxation.
Or inhibit the creation & accumulation of wealth.

Neither would be especially popular amongst the population in general.

Eugene Norman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So you can either:
Confiscate more of this wealth via taxation.
Or inhibit the creation & accumulation of wealth.

Neither would be especially popular amongst the population in general.

The first point isn't true even in the U.S.
The second point is just propaganda.

BoJack Horseman

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The first point isn't true even in the U.S.

Brace yourself Eugene, but wealth can be taxed.

The second point is just propaganda.

Rebalancing the ownership of the means of economic production is on page 1 of the socialist handbook.

I'm glad you agree considering rebalancing this away from the very few to be propaganda.

It shows Bernie's ideas can be dismissed as "propaganda".

TwoGallants

I adore Bernie Sanders and in a Sanders/Trump contest he would win handily. The right wing have talked a bit about the Oberton window... when you gradually shift the center ground over time so that what was once a fairly timid center left position looks communist and a right wing one the political mainstream. So what you have now is a Democratic Party with 1980s Republican party policies. Its time we broke with these rotten ideas and shifted the paradigm back to the left again. People believe in neo liberalism as if it is religion, but it has been a terrible failure. I believe we are witness to a new generation of politics, when normal people with figureheads like Sanders in the US and Corbyn in the UK are retaking the social democratic parties and shifting the debate back to inequality and people's lives, not enriching the rich even more.

Viva el Sanders!

BoJack Horseman

TwoGallants wrote: »

People believe in neo liberalism as if it is religion

What does it mean?

Aimead

His voting record has been consistent for decades, what he says seems to make sense to me and he hasn’t been bought-and-sold.

I cannot even come close to saying that about a single other declared candidate, which is kind of scary to think about.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Rebalancing the ownership of the means of economic production is on page 1 of the socialist handbook.

I'm glad you agree considering rebalancing this away from the very few to be propaganda.

Are you serious?

When you use a line like “Or inhibit the creation & accumulation of wealth” it looked like a reference to the tired meme of ‘you shouldn’t tax the job creators’ that has been repeated ad-nauseum in US politics. This was why the other poster called propaghanda. To then respond with the above is a total and utter non-sequiter.

The other poster pointed out the fact that median wages in the US are flat or falling, and that the incomes of the top earners is increasing. Suggesting a tax break for those in the flat or falling category, and balancing it with a corresponding tax on the second category, is often met (in US politics at least) with claims that if you tax the ‘job creators’ you will stagnate the creation of wealth. It is, as the other poster correctly noted, pure propaganda. The response you gave is totally disconnected from this train of thought.

TwoGallants

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What does it mean?

Privatisation is always better than public ownership.
Low taxes for the rich will improve incomes for all.
Light touch regulation of the financial sector will help the creation of wealth.
Open border trade will benefit everyone.

The above has been a disaster. A set of ideas emanating from the 80s and which have now served their time.

Overheal

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So you can either:
Confiscate more of this wealth via taxation.
Or inhibit the creation & accumulation of wealth.

Neither would be especially popular amongst the population in general.

No they are quite popular among the population, especially anyone you speak to who earns anything south of $100k/yr, which is a lot of people. I haven't really sat down with a colleague who was legitimately like "I think its reprehensible that they want to increase the taxes of the Donald and close loopholes that let corps declare profits at foreign mail drops that are smaller than a breadbox"

Thing is when you're rich, you can lobby, you can advertise, hell you can even influence your employees into voting how you want (I got that email, and that pizza). And I assume that's the most mild case, think about all the times employers get involved with talking to employees about unions and healthcare. Intimidation is illegal, but influence - you're their employer. The natural response of the employee is that whats good for the employer can be good for me, so lets vote against tobacco regulation or public option healthcare etc.

And don't think the rich won't: remember when the Stop Online Piracy Act ended up activating The Internet (the whole thing) into action in opposition of it - that was millions of people railing against something that was going to hurt everyone (and it was backed by some 1%'rs like the googles and the facebooks of the world). So imagine when legislation comes that increases tax on the wealthy? If that legislation ended up increasing their taxes by say, XXX billion/year, they will not have any reservation about spending double that amount to lobby against such a change.

Billionaires like Bernie Sanders are among the few calling for the increase in taxes. (there are fewer than 1700 billionaires globally, which as you have no doubt amassed, control a grossly disproportionate amount of the world's wealth)

Wealth accumulation is a direct contradiction to trickle down economics - which is a broken concept anyway. At this point, the billionaires have so much influence and resource they can just trade with themselves, they don't need to give away money. Even for the basic **** - Apple is no longer happy with BUYING paper. What an antique concept, they will make their own: http://gizmodo.com/ikea-is-buying-up-whole-forests-and-so-is-apple-1721878293 and IKEA too will manage its own forests. Just how does a company like Apple that makes a fortune from taking your money, trickle it back down exactly?

Using the Socialism brush is old at this point: socialist policies are not all bad. Like all policies they have downsides, but in lots of cases they are built to help as many people as possible. But keep going at that while the US isn't even a democracy anymore: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/jimmy-carter-is-correct-t_b_7922788.html

BoJack Horseman

Aimead wrote: »

Are you serious?

Mostly.

A socialist would usually argue that focusing the modes of economic production among the very few at the top is bad?

It seems the Bernie fanboyz are against that?

Change doesn't happen by magic.

A government has to retake industry, land, commerce from the elites.

A percent or two on income tax isn't going to cut it... & is usually counterproductive.
(Attacking higher earning PAYE workers doesn't change anything).


The real captains of industry aren't going to hand the reigns over.
It must be appropriated.

Or are US socialists different by definition to ours?

Amerika

With the socialist Bernie Sanders running for president in the Democratic primary, I found it interesting that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, was unable to answer the question of “What is the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist?“ in a couple of interviews last week. IMO she skirted the question because if she was truthful, she’d have to say the current Democratic party runs to the left of Socialism.

PopePalpatine

"Tailgunner Joe" would be proud.

TwoGallants

Amerika wrote: »

With the socialist Bernie Sanders running for president in the Democratic primary, I found it interesting that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, was unable to answer the question of “What is the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist?“ in a couple of interviews last week. IMO she skirted the question because if she was truthful, she’d have to say the current Democratic party runs to the left of Socialism.

Ah, almost a carbon copy of Bill O Reilly's talking points at the weekend. Does it even matter if its factual or not? I take great pleasure at the knowledge that the majority of Fox News viewers will be dead in 20 years and that most people under 40 laugh at the idea of somebody watching it.

Amerika

TwoGallants wrote: »

Ah, almost a carbon copy of Bill O Reilly's talking points at the weekend. Does it even matter if its factual or not? I take great pleasure at the knowledge that the majority of Fox News viewers will be dead in 20 years and that most people under 40 laugh at the idea of somebody watching it.

Factual or not? My gawd, when did Fox News acquire MSNBC? Nobody tells me nothing.

Next you'll be telling me Rachel Maddow is a closet Conservative.

TwoGallants

Amerika wrote: »

Factual or not? My gawd, when did Fox News acquire MSNBC? Nobody tells me nothing.

Next you'll be telling me Rachel Maddow is a closet Conservative.

I mean, Bill O reilly did a segment about this the other day, your 'analysis' is the same as his. The Democratic Party is not socialist, anyone who knows either democrat policy or socialism knows this. I'm aware anything to the left of Strom Thurmond is socialist nowadays to Republicans but... There are facts.

Zascar

Not sure how accurate this is but interesting nonetheless
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/almost-every-major-poll-shows-bernie-sanders_b_7937906.html

Amerika

Zascar wrote: »

Not sure how accurate this is but interesting nonetheless
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/almost-every-major-poll-shows-bernie-sanders_b_7937906.html

I know a few HufPo contributors... Ideologues the lot of them who like to pass off subjective opinions as objective reporting IMO. I also notice none of these types of articles fawning over Sanders usually ever list what he actually stands for and the economic costs to the average citizen for his policies.

I do hope Bernie wins the Democratic primary. He’ll get creamed in a general election when the low information voters will finally be forced to forego their TV entertainment deluge and actually have to listen to what the candidates stand for... even though it will most likely be in the form of political commercials aired during Big Brother.

Aimead

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

A government has to retake industry, land, commerce from the elites.

I just don’t believe you are making this sorts of statements seriously. A common policy recommendation is to close corporate tax loopholes (so you no longer have the crazy situation where Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of tax than his secretary) – can you seriously compare this sort of policy initiative with your style of hyperbole?

And that’s the issue – these sorts of common sense initiatives are always attacked with just this sort of hyperbole.

Or are US socialists different by definition to ours?

Social democracy isn’t full on socialism fyi. But that’s the entire argument against someone like Sanders (and sorts of policies that the Nordic countries follow) isn’t it? You just take the most absurd extreme you can attach to the word ‘socialism’ and ignore what is actually being proposed.

---

Amerika wrote: »

IMO she skirted the question because if she was truthful, she’d have to say the current Democratic party runs to the left of Socialism.

Words like ‘left’ and ‘right’ cease to have any meaning when combined in this way. For the last two decades the Republicans have been moving further and further to the ‘right’, and the Democrats have been following them. When the centre-right positions of two decades ago are considered socialist today then, as I said, the words ‘left’ and ‘right’ lose all meaning.

BoJack Horseman

Aimead wrote:

so you no longer have the crazy situation where Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of tax than his secretary)

If Warren pays a lower rate of income tax then his secretary, then he's got a very well paid secretary, either that or his income is next to nothing.

Social democracy isn’t full on socialism fyi.

You folk need to make up your mind, is Bernie a socialist or a social democrat like most Dems?

But that’s the entire argument against someone like Sanders (and sorts of policies that the Nordic countries follow) isn’t it?

This is news?
Does Sanders want tax rates similar to the Nords?
if this gets out that he intends on taking over 2.6 trillion in additional taxes annually it would kick his campaign in the balls!

MightyMandarin

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If Warren pays a lower rate of income tax then his secretary, then he's got a very well paid secretary, either that or his income is next to nothing.

Or he exposed a loophole which allowed him to pay a lower rate of tax than his secretary.

I know it's hard to get your head around, but you have remember this America, where the tax policy is overly complex in order to confuse the average person with hundreds of pages of needless garbage with some nice loopholes for the rich neatly hidden inside which are incredibly difficult to detect, let alone eliminate.

You folk need to make up your mind, is Bernie a socialist or a social democrat like most Dems?

He's a social democrat. His policies run with the 'Scandinavian style' policies which Catherine Murphy's group have alligned themselves to. Republicans have unsurprisingly branded him a socialist, which to be fair is not way off the mark considering US politics definitely leans toward the right, and is now in a situation where liberals who are scorned for being 'left' are actually centre or centre-right compared with politicians here.

This is news?
Does Sanders want tax rates similar to the Nords?
if this gets out that he intends on taking over 2.6 trillion in additional taxes annually it would kick his campaign in the balls!

It's pretty obvious that he's going to hike taxes, and the Republicans will certainly jump on this and sling every bit of mud which didn't seem to stick to Hillary (assuming she loses to Sanders of course).

Aimead

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Does Sanders want tax rates similar to the Nords?

MightyMandarin eloquently dealt with your other tosh so I don’t need to repeat those thoughts.

I don’t think Sanders wants any particular tax rate, but rather it is a simple case of being fiscally responsible (funny that). Historically (in the 60’s) the top earners were paying 70% over the threshold. Today that rate is 40%. Corporation tax was over 50% in the same period, while it is 35% today.

The budget had to make up the shortfall from somewhere and the result was to put more people into poverty and generally squeeze the middle class. Economically (Nick Hanauer’s TED makes this point well) if the people who spend a higher percentage of their money have less money then you stall growth and increase unemployment. The whole ‘well they are just lazy’ doesn’t stack up either since productivity has steadily risen while wages haven’t.

There are other more crazy economics in play too. Some States introduced lotteries, often claimed to raise money for things like healthcare and the like, but in practice they gave out corporate tax cuts with things like the health budget and used the lotteries to plug the gap. Then you have the mental situation where some US cities are operating their law enforcement around raising revenue rather than delivering justice – in effect criminalising those already in poverty and strip-mining them for whatever little cash they have.

You don’t need to be a social democrat to understand that, from a purely economic perspective, the policies pursued in the US have not only not worked but are also not sustainable in the long term. So far Sanders is the only declared candidate I’ve seen that has managed to articulate these issues. The fiscally responsible thing to do here is pretty obvious, but I’ve little doubt there will be plenty like you lining up to take pot shots at anyone honest enough to state it.

Brian?

Aimead wrote: »

MightyMandarin eloquently dealt with your other tosh so I don’t need to repeat those thoughts.

I don’t think Sanders wants any particular tax rate, but rather it is a simple case of being fiscally responsible (funny that). Historically (in the 60’s) the top earners were paying 70% over the threshold. Today that rate is 40%. Corporation tax was over 50% in the same period, while it is 35% today.

The budget had to make up the shortfall from somewhere and the result was to put more people into poverty and generally squeeze the middle class. Economically (Nick Hanauer’s TED makes this point well) if the people who spend a higher percentage of their money have less money then you stall growth and increase unemployment. The whole ‘well they are just lazy’ doesn’t stack up either since productivity has steadily risen while wages haven’t.

There are other more crazy economics in play too. Some States introduced lotteries, often claimed to raise money for things like healthcare and the like, but in practice they gave out corporate tax cuts with things like the health budget and used the lotteries to plug the gap. Then you have the mental situation where some US cities are operating their law enforcement around raising revenue rather than delivering justice – in effect criminalising those already in poverty and strip-mining them for whatever little cash they have.

You don’t need to be a social democrat to understand that, from a purely economic perspective, the policies pursued in the US have not only not worked but are also not sustainable in the long term. So far Sanders is the only declared candidate I’ve seen that has managed to articulate these issues. The fiscally responsible thing to do here is pretty obvious, but I’ve little doubt there will be plenty like you lining up to take pot shots at anyone honest enough to state it.

Very well put.

rogue_spender

Eric Cartman wrote: »

fixing income inequality is a term that irks me so imo already down a step

on gun control I'm mixed as he doesn't seem to want guns completely gone, but he's very much in favour of taking them away for protection and as a hobby and moving them to a utilitarian agricultural tool only , this i wouldn't agree with.

on tax reform he's far too left for me and is pretty much in favour of the shiner-esque 'tax all da millionaires and dat will fix it' plan .

I admire his avoidance of super-pac's and he's definitely an upstanding respectable guy with a lot of input to give. Would I go for a pint with him - yes , would I elect him as president - no.

a left winger in the u.s is not the same as in Ireland , Ireland is not an especially unequal country despite what many politicans and commentators keep telling us , America is an incredibly unequal country and sometimes a guy like sanders has something useful to contribute

I say that as someone who also dislikes that loaded term

InTheTrees

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If Warren pays a lower rate of income tax then his secretary, then he's got a very well paid secretary, either that or his income is next to nothing.

I'm sure his "income" is zero.

His wealth grows through capital gains, and that tax can be written off in many ways.

Black Menorca

Gotta love Bernie Sanders.

He has Hillary on the run and thats always good.

He's a rabid abortionista but thats irrelevant in the Oval Office.

He's hand in glove with Pope Francis on economics and how to give respect and dignity to the poor.

Jolly Red Giant

Akrasia wrote: »

Income inequality in the U.S. is out of control though.
The real median industrial wage in the U.S. is flat or falling for decades, while the percentage of the wealth controlled by the wealthy 1% has hugely increased.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/17/wealth-gap-upper-middle-income/

Very similar to Ireland

Jolly Red Giant

TwoGallants wrote: »

Privatisation is always better than public ownership.
Low taxes for the rich will improve incomes for all.
Light touch regulation of the financial sector will help the creation of wealth.
Open border trade will benefit everyone.

The above has been a disaster. A set of ideas emanating from the 80s and which have now served their time.

Yes indeed - we have just had all of that and where did it lead ?

Oh yea - crash !!!!!

Jolly Red Giant

Sanders is a soft social democrat - e.g. Catherine Murphy lite. And for the clown above who said he was a billionaire - well clearly you know very little about him.

Sanders is getting an echo for two reasons -

1. He is sloganising on the basis 'end the rule of the billionaires'

2. The campaign for a minimum wage of $15 per hour - which developed from a successful campaign by Socialist Alternative (sister party of the Socialist Party in USA) in Seattle and has now spread countrywide into a major social movement. The call for $15Now has been pushed to the fore by the thousands attending rallies organised by Sanders.

Sanders will not win the Democrat nomination - he won't even get close - the Democrat hierarchy will shaft him long before he gets close.

What Sanders should do once he gets shafted is launch an independent campaign for the presidency on the basis of 'ending the rule of the billionaires' and taking up the demands for $15Now and an end to evictions and the establishment of rent controls. If he did this - which he won't - he would get a massive echo in American society where there is a growing rejection of the system of the billionaires and use the presidential campaign to launch a new party of working class people.

MightyMandarin

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Very similar to Ireland

No, America has far, far worse wealth inequality.

Aimead

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

What Sanders should do once he gets shafted is launch an independent campaign for the presidency …..

In the long run the only outcome of that will be to guarantee a Republican victory since it will split the vote with the Democratic (likely Hillary in this scenario) candidate. Sad but true.

Amerika

Aimead wrote: »

In the long run the only outcome of that will be to guarantee a Republican victory since it will split the vote with the Democratic (likely Hillary in this scenario) candidate. Sad but true.

And why as an independent? We do have the Socialist Party USA here. That's really where he belongs if he wants to be truthful with the voters.

Aimead

Amerika wrote: »

We do have the Socialist Party USA here. That's really where he belongs if he wants to be truthful with the voters.

He is a ‘social democrat’, which is closer to the Democratic party than the Socialist party. I know that seems to escape you, but it is quite true.

Amerika

Aimead wrote: »

He is a ‘social democrat’, which is closer to the Democratic party than the Socialist party. I know that seems to escape you, but it is quite true.

Ah yes, perpetuate the false narrative about the Democratic Party. It's not the Democratic Socialist Party. And Hillary Clinton will be sure to drive that point home if Sanders continues to gain in the polls.

Aimead

Let me quiz you this then. Can you cite a single policy position Sanders holds, or proposal he has made, that is closer to the Socialist Party than the Democratic Party?

Because, as it stands, I really don’t think you realise just how far from ‘extreme socialism’ the whole ‘democratic socialism’ is.

Amerika

Aimead wrote: »

Let me quiz you this then. Can you cite a single policy position Sanders holds, or proposal he has made, that is closer to the Socialist Party than the Democratic Party?

Because, as it stands, I really don’t think you realise just how far from ‘extreme socialism’ the whole ‘democratic socialism’ is.

Well, Sanders want to end the system of where workers have no choice but to labor for others' profit so they can survive (Marx called that wage slavery). Over here in the states many consider that Socialism. Don’t get caught up in European definitions, or do so, makes no nevermind to me. And if pure definitions is all that matters, then I concede on the definition front. But if you want a better insight how this will all play out, I'd put a heavier weight on what Americans think Socialism is, rather then what textbook state.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Well, Sanders want to end the system of where workers have no choice but to labor for others' profit so they can survive (Marx called that wage slavery). Over here in the states many consider that Socialism. Don’t get caught up in European definitions, or do so, makes no nevermind to me. And if pure definitions is all that matters, then I concede on the definition front. But if you want a better insight how this will all play out, I'd put a heavier weight on what Americans think Socialism is, rather then what textbook state.

Just because many peopel consider it to be socialism, that doesn't make them correct. You're asking to redefine a political theory based on a wide spread misconception.

Aimead

Amerika wrote: »

Well, Sanders want to end the system of where workers have no choice but to labor for others' profit so they can survive (Marx called that wage slavery).

The closest position Sanders holds to that is to support the right of workers to unionise. Are you saying that the right to unionise isn’t a position held by many in the Democratic Party?

I don’t understand why, if you are so confident in your political positions, you need to constantly strawman someone like Sanders like you do above.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Just because many peopel consider it to be socialism, that doesn't make them correct. You're asking to redefine a political theory based on a wide spread misconception.

Well, good luck making the argument to the American people that their political theory is a wide spread misconception... to a point where it means anything in the election process.

Amerika

Aimead wrote: »

The closest position Sanders holds to that is to support the right of workers to unionise. Are you saying that the right to unionise isn’t a position held by many in the Democratic Party?

I don’t understand why, if you are so confident in your political positions, you need to constantly strawman someone like Sanders like you do above.

Democrats love union, it's their political cash cow.

But it is the unions that represent public sector employees, in particular, that the GOP detests. These are the people who populate the extensive bureaucracies that the Republicans loathes. The Unions donate to Democrats and then directly negotiate contracts and pay with the very democrats they put into office.

And how exactly is calling Sanders a socialist, when he calls himself a democratic socialist, a strawman argument?

Aimead

Amerika wrote: »

Democrats love union, it's their political cash cow.

So do you acknowledge that, on this particular issue, Sanders is closer to the Democratic Party than the Socialist Party.

And how exactly is calling Sanders a socialist, when he calls himself a democratic socialist, a strawman argument?

Because ‘democratic socialist’ isn’t the same thing as ‘socialist’.

Let me put it like this. You like having police around to protect your property? You like having the military around to protect your country? Does liking those things make one a socialist (considering that those things are, in some sense, closer to Socialism than Capitalism)? If you can understand why the answer is ‘no’ you should be able to also understand why being a ‘democratic socialist’ doesn’t necessarily make you a ‘socialist’.

For reference, on the union issue the Socialist Party (from my reading of their materials) have a very different stance to Sanders in that they want all corporations to be owned by the workers – I’ve seen no evidence that Sanders holds or supports that position.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Well, good luck making the argument to the American people that their political theory is a wide spread misconception... to a point where it means anything in the election process.

I won't be making any argument to the American people as a whole. That's a bit beyond my influence. I would like to teach the people I can reach the difference between a socialist, such as myself, and a social democrat, such as Bernie Sanders. It's a very big distinction.

It's not that "their political theory is a misconception". The theory isn't theirs to begin with. People such as yourself misunderstand what socialism is. Socialism is an extreme. If you think Bernie Sanders is a socialist/Marxist, then your understand of Marxism is severely lacking. "Many people" sharing and idea doesn't make them correct.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I won't be making any argument to the American people as a whole. That's a bit beyond my influence. I would like to teach the people I can reach the difference between a socialist, such as myself, and a social democrat, such as Bernie Sanders. It's a very big distinction.

It's not that "their political theory is a misconception". The theory isn't theirs to begin with. People such as yourself misunderstand what socialism is. Socialism is an extreme. If you think Bernie Sanders is a socialist/Marxist, then your understand of Marxism is severely lacking. "Many people" sharing and idea doesn't make them correct.

And you misunderstand American politics. It's not the Webster definition, but rather the political tag that counts.

Amerika

Aimead wrote: »

So do you acknowledge that, on this particular issue, Sanders is closer to the Democratic Party than the Socialist Party.

Because ‘democratic socialist’ isn’t the same thing as ‘socialist’.

Let me put it like this. You like having police around to protect your property? You like having the military around to protect your country? Does liking those things make one a socialist (considering that those things are, in some sense, closer to Socialism than Capitalism)? If you can understand why the answer is ‘no’ you should be able to also understand why being a ‘democratic socialist’ doesn’t necessarily make you a ‘socialist’.

For reference, on the union issue the Socialist Party (from my reading of their materials) have a very different stance to Sanders in that they want all corporations to be owned by the workers – I’ve seen no evidence that Sanders holds or supports that position.

Fine, whatever, then I suggest you take it over the the Political Theory thread, because in US Politics Sanders will be labeled a Socialist, if on the remote chance he beats Clinton. Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist, Independent Democratic Socialist blah blah blah means diddly squat. He will be labeled the Socialist the Democrats have chosen to lead America... Take down the pictures of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and replace them with Karl Mark! American politics, baby!

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

And you misunderstand American politics. It's not the Webster definition, but rather the political tag that counts.

So you don't actually care that he's not a socialist? You're going to continue to call him that because that's how he'll be labelled?

Aimead

Amerika wrote: »

….because in US Politics Sanders will be labeled a Socialist, if on the remote chance he beats Clinton.

I’m beginning to wonder if that tactic of labelling everything as being socialist is starting to backfire.

If a person is told that Sanders is a socialist, and that description is based on additional claims to Marxism/Communisim, what will that person think if they actually hear him speak? The difference between Sanders, and the almost childish caricature of that some are presenting, is a little too big to slip by most people. Also factor in that most people can see how the quality of life in the Scandinavian countries is better than the US, and that the Cold War may be far enough in history so that the usual rhetoric doesn’t hold the same impact.

I don’t believe the average person is that stupid. Disinformed, maybe, but not that stupid. Is this a time where the misrepresentation has been pushed just that little too far? If the entire argument against Sanders is forms of ‘he’s a socialist’ then an audience, that once would have bought that line, might be surprised to hear what he has to say.

Or to put it another way: The label ‘socialist’ has been so devalued by the constant unrelenting misuse of it that either people zone out the rhetoric or, a worst case scenario for the attack dogs, they start to associate the term as ‘being for the middle class’. Given just how popular that ‘being for the middle class’ is right now I’d say calling him a socialist might be a double edged sword.

---

Brian? wrote: »

So you don't actually care that he's not a socialist? You're going to continue to call him that because that's how he'll be labelled?

Hi. Welcome to US politics. Enjoy your stay.

Amerika

Aimead wrote: »

I’m beginning to wonder if that tactic of labelling everything as being socialist is starting to backfire.

If a person is told that Sanders is a socialist, and that description is based on additional claims to Marxism/Communisim, what will that person think if they actually hear him speak? The difference between Sanders, and the almost childish caricature of that some are presenting, is a little too big to slip by most people. Also factor in that most people can see how the quality of life in the Scandinavian countries is better than the US, and that the Cold War may be far enough in history so that the usual rhetoric doesn’t hold the same impact.

I don’t believe the average person is that stupid. Disinformed, maybe, but not that stupid. Is this a time where the misrepresentation has been pushed just that little too far? If the entire argument against Sanders is forms of ‘he’s a socialist’ then an audience, that once would have bought that line, might be surprised to hear what he has to say.

Or to put it another way: The label ‘socialist’ has been so devalued by the constant unrelenting misuse of it that either people zone out the rhetoric or, a worst case scenario for the attack dogs, they start to associate the term as ‘being for the middle class’. Given just how popular that ‘being for the middle class’ is right now I’d say calling him a socialist might be a double edged sword.

Well it worked with the misuse, mischaracterizations and misinformation perpetrated by so many regarding the Tea Party, wasn't it? And it’s funny, but when it was done by most here against the TP, no one ever seemed care what they really stood for or what their core principles were, and were only interested in condemning them based on the talking points and labels dreamed up by the left. What's good for the Tea Party is good for the Socialists, wouldn't you agree? But I digress.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

Well, Sanders want to end the system of where workers have no choice but to labor for others' profit so they can survive (Marx called that wage slavery).

You say that like it's a bad thing???

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Fine, whatever, then I suggest you take it over the the Political Theory thread, because in US Politics Sanders will be labeled a Socialist, if on the remote chance he beats Clinton. Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist, Independent Democratic Socialist blah blah blah means diddly squat. He will be labeled the Socialist the Democrats have chosen to lead America... Take down the pictures of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and replace them with Karl Mark! American politics, baby!

Thats a little sensationalist - and who has that many GW/AL pictures hanging around? The Smithsonian?

Amerika wrote: »

Democrats love union, it's their political cash cow.

But it is the unions that represent public sector employees, in particular, that the GOP detests. These are the people who populate the extensive bureaucracies that the Republicans loathes. The Unions donate to Democrats and then directly negotiate contracts and pay with the very democrats they put into office.

And the GOP has big tobacco, Monsanto, Koch Bros. etc. so whats the point here

You say that like it's a bad thing???

For real.

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

Factual or not? My gawd, when did Fox News acquire MSNBC? Nobody tells me nothing.

Next you'll be telling me Rachel Maddow is a closet Conservative.

MSNBC has Joe Scarborough in the mornings. You know, the guy with the female host beside him who embodies 'battered wife syndrome'.