Sanders!

[KeepTalking]

\He calls himself a democratic socialist, which is not the same as a socialist. It is not his fault that the average moron does not know what a democratic socialist is.

I think he confuses is it with social democracy. Socialism is a system characterized by public ownership of means of production. It should not be muddled by using it for essentially capitalist systems with more generous social safety net and stricter regulations than we have in the US.

Again, he does not call himself a socialist, so he is not confusing anything, you are. Any time it is brought up that he is a socialist, he corrects that misconception, and notes that he is a democratic socialist.

 

[PyramidHead]

How far left do you want to go?

On which issues could Sanders be further to the left than he is?

Well, he doesn't want to nationalize the oil/gas industry. He isn't proposing minimum incomes for all citizens.

What Sanders wants is what the majority of Americans want. The Republicans, however, have perfected the art of having people vote against what they actually want.

It's very interesting that someone can conceive of Sanders as as far left as one can go. It shows how rightist our politics are IMO.

I don't really know every detail of his platform...

Did you mean to say "any" detail?

I know he really wants to break up and nationalize big banks, which is maybe the most lefty thing about his set of policies. Other than that, after checking around for a bit, you're right, he is pretty moderate.

- - - Updated - - -

I think he confuses is it with social democracy. Socialism is a system characterized by public ownership of means of production. It should not be muddled by using it for essentially capitalist systems with more generous social safety net and stricter regulations than we have in the US.

Again, he does not call himself a socialist, so he is not confusing anything, you are. Any time it is brought up that he is a socialist, he corrects that misconception, and notes that he is a democratic socialist.

I guess it's a PR thing. I wonder how many people would be ok with a "social democrat" Prez but not "democratic socialist" (are they synonymous?).

 

[untermensche]

I guess it's a PR thing. I wonder how many people would be ok with a "social democrat" Prez but not "democratic socialist" (are they synonymous?).

You mean what are the implication of labels on the horse race?

Yes I forgot, elections are not about competing ideas. They are horse races based on perceptions.

 

[Horatio Parker]

How far left do you want to go?

On which issues could Sanders be further to the left than he is?

Well, he doesn't want to nationalize the oil/gas industry. He isn't proposing minimum incomes for all citizens.

What Sanders wants is what the majority of Americans want. The Republicans, however, have perfected the art of having people vote against what they actually want.

It's very interesting that someone can conceive of Sanders as as far left as one can go. It shows how rightist our politics are IMO.

I don't really know every detail of his platform...

Did you mean to say "any" detail?

I know he really wants to break up and nationalize big banks, which is maybe the most lefty thing about his set of policies. Other than that, after checking around for a bit, you're right, he is pretty moderate.

- - - Updated - - -

I think he confuses is it with social democracy. Socialism is a system characterized by public ownership of means of production. It should not be muddled by using it for essentially capitalist systems with more generous social safety net and stricter regulations than we have in the US.

Again, he does not call himself a socialist, so he is not confusing anything, you are. Any time it is brought up that he is a socialist, he corrects that misconception, and notes that he is a democratic socialist.

I guess it's a PR thing. I wonder how many people would be ok with a "social democrat" Prez but not "democratic socialist" (are they synonymous?).

That it has to be explained puts Sanders at a disadvantage.

 

[Derec]

Again, he does not call himself a socialist, so he is not confusing anything, you are. Any time it is brought up that he is a socialist, he corrects that misconception, and notes that he is a democratic socialist.

Democratic socialist is a type of socialist, right?

 

[SimpleDon]

I am sure that Hillary and her massive campaign machine noticed the recent Gallup poll in which the same percentage of the population said that they are socially liberal as said that they were socially conservative, 31%. Social liberals must not vote in large numbers.

 

[untermensche]

Again, he does not call himself a socialist, so he is not confusing anything, you are. Any time it is brought up that he is a socialist, he corrects that misconception, and notes that he is a democratic socialist.

Democratic socialist is a type of socialist, right?

Some label some of the Scandinavian and other European countries as Social Democracies. The attempt to extend social services as far as possible within a democratic framework.

Most likely that is what Sanders is talking about as a model for the transformations he would like to see.

He is most definitely not talking about abandoning capitalism, only trying to make it more friendly.

 

[PyramidHead]

Again, he does not call himself a socialist, so he is not confusing anything, you are. Any time it is brought up that he is a socialist, he corrects that misconception, and notes that he is a democratic socialist.

Democratic socialist is a type of socialist, right?

I was going to say the same, but maybe it's more like how a social libertarian is one thing (a person who is libertarian about social issues), while a libertarian per se is probably libertarian on both social and economic issues. Technically one could say a social libertarian is a type of libertarian, but that's not very informative, as he may disagree with a libertarian on many issues.

 

[ronburgundy]

Sanders isn't nearly as left as Bush and Walker are right. The fact that there are office holders even more to the right than Bush and Walker just shows how dangerously skewed to toward the theocratic, anti-education, fuck-the-environment, and corporatist values of the extremist right that US politicians are compared to the actual values of most of the population both in the US and especially the free-world in general.

Conservatives in Congress have gotten much more extreme in the last decades, while liberals now are no more liberal than before, and if anything resemble the moderate "conservatives" of the 1970's. Analyses of policy positions shows that todays most "moderate" Republicans are more extremely to the right than the most extremist Republicans were a few decades ago.

In contrast, this is the opposite of the general population, who are generally more liberal than the past. A small sub-set of extreme conservatives have gotten even more extreme, and they have gained control of the Republican party. As a result, those in Congress have increasingly assumed that the public is more and more conservative (the blue line in the graph), even though that is objectively not true. The increasing extremism of a sub-set is balanced out by the move toward moderate liberalism of the majority, resulting in a relatively stable overall "average" level of conservatism among the public over time (the red line).

The research shows that it is conservative politicians that are especially wrong in over-estimating their own local constituents conservatism on most issues.

So why are these conservative extremists who misrepresent their constituents' political views and interests in office able to win elections? Because they lie to and emotionally manipulate those constituents, just like they are doing with Sanders and have done for 8 years against Obama, with fear-mongering trigger words like "Socialist" rather than arguing against any of the specific policies their opponents endorse, which most of their constituents would support if they actually knew what those policies were.

 

[Derec]

I was going to say the same, but maybe it's more like how a social libertarian is one thing (a person who is libertarian about social issues), while a libertarian per se is probably libertarian on both social and economic issues. Technically one could say a social libertarian is a type of libertarian, but that's not very informative, as he may disagree with a libertarian on many issues.

The "social" qualifies "libertarian" as to the type of issues one subscribes to libertarian position. The "democratic" qualifies "socialist" in a way that the "socialism" is to the accomplished by democratic means, rather than a revolution. But it should still be "socialist" in essence, i.e. supporting a society based on public ownership of means of production. Supporting a capitalist system with more regulation and more social spending is not "socialist" of any stripe.

- - - Updated - - -

, with fear-mongering trigger words like "Socialist"

Easy to do when the guy uses the fear-mongering trigger-word to describe himself.

 

[untermensche]

Sanders isn't nearly as left as Bush and Walker are right.

Sanders would be a typical politician in many European nations.

It is only in the US he appears as far left.

He has no desire to tear down capitalism. He only wants things like universal health insurance, and corporations and the most rich paying a little more taxes.

 

[KeepTalking]

Again, he does not call himself a socialist, so he is not confusing anything, you are. Any time it is brought up that he is a socialist, he corrects that misconception, and notes that he is a democratic socialist.

Democratic socialist is a type of socialist, right?

A very specific type of socialist that is not the same as an actual socialist. Much in the same way that the Democratic Republic of Korea is not actually a democracy.

 

[untermensche]

Easy to do when the guy uses the fear-mongering trigger-word to describe himself.

One must not be reduced to a Pavlovian reflex.

One must not jump in joy when somebody claims to be a capitalist nor sicken when somebody says they are a socialist.

Labels are meaningless. Principles and ideas and plans are everything.

How exactly is any Republican candidate going to take us from the Dark Ages of the Bush war on terror that creates more terrorists than it kills?

 

[PyramidHead]

Democratic socialist is a type of socialist, right?

A very specific type of socialist that is not the same as an actual socialist. Much in the same way that the Democratic Republic of Korea is not actually a democracy.

Wikipedia says democratic socialists generally favor public ownership of the means of production, and even lists Sanders as a notable example.

Democratic socialism rejects the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality and solidarity. From this perspective, democratic socialists believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by a transition from capitalism to socialism - by superseding private property with some form of social ownership; and that any attempt to address the economic contradictions of capitalism through reforms will only cause problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy.

From Bernie's Wiki:

An independent politician since 1979, Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist[4][5][6][7] who favors the creation of employee-owned cooperative enterprises[8][9] and has praised Scandinavian-style social democracy.[10][11][12] He caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for purposes of committee assignments. Since January 2015, Sanders has been the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Budget Committee.[13]

He may mean something else when he uses the term than is commonly understood. Or maybe he really does want to supersede private property altogether, which would put him well to the left of center even in international terms.

 

[KeepTalking]

The "social" qualifies "libertarian" as to the type of issues one subscribes to libertarian position. The "democratic" qualifies "socialist" in a way that the "socialism" is to the accomplished by democratic means, rather than a revolution. But it should still be "socialist" in essence, i.e. supporting a society based on public ownership of means of production. Supporting a capitalist system with more regulation and more social spending is not "socialist" of any stripe.

Since Sanders does not support a society based on public ownership of the means of production, I am glad that you finally agree with me that he is not a socialist of any stripe.

 

[PyramidHead]

The "social" qualifies "libertarian" as to the type of issues one subscribes to libertarian position. The "democratic" qualifies "socialist" in a way that the "socialism" is to the accomplished by democratic means, rather than a revolution. But it should still be "socialist" in essence, i.e. supporting a society based on public ownership of means of production. Supporting a capitalist system with more regulation and more social spending is not "socialist" of any stripe.

Since Sanders does not support a society based on public ownership of the means of production, I am glad that you finally agree with me that he is not a socialist of any stripe.

The PR point being, if he wants to be consistent with common usage (and avoid turning off knee-jerk voters as an added bonus), he should stop calling himself a democratic socialist.

 

[KeepTalking]

Since Sanders does not support a society based on public ownership of the means of production, I am glad that you finally agree with me that he is not a socialist of any stripe.

The PR point being, if he wants to be consistent with common usage (and avoid turning off knee-jerk voters as an added bonus), he should stop calling himself a democratic socialist.

It doesn't matter, he is going to be called a socialist, or communist, anyway. Just like Obama is called a socialist, and a communist, even though he does not call himself anything other than a democrat. So maybe Sanders is being really cagey about it. He calls himself a democratic socialist, and knows that is going to put that conversation up front in any media engagement. It gives him the opportunity to explain his actual political position, instead of just having people call him a socialist behind his back, and never having anyone actually engage him on the topic. But really, it is up to him what he calls himself.

You earlier quoted wikipedia on democratic socialism, but it appears you neglected to read the entire introduction to the article, the last paragraph of which states the following:

There is no exact definition of democratic socialism. Some forms of democratic socialism overlap with social democracy, while many forms reject social democratic reformism in favor of more transformative methods, while some forms overlap with Revolutionary Socialism. The "democratic" element may refer to extending principles of democracy in the economy (such as through cooperatives or workplace democracy), or it may refer to support for a multi-party parliamentary democracy.

 

[PyramidHead]

The PR point being, if he wants to be consistent with common usage (and avoid turning off knee-jerk voters as an added bonus), he should stop calling himself a democratic socialist.

It doesn't matter, he is going to be called a socialist, or communist, anyway. Just like Obama is called a socialist, and a communist, even though he does not call himself anything other than a democrat. So maybe Sanders is being really cagey about it. He calls himself a democratic socialist, and knows that is going to put that conversation up front in any media engagement. It gives him the opportunity to explain his actual political position, instead of just having people call him a socialist behind his back, and never having anyone actually engage him on the topic. But really, it is up to him what he calls himself.

You earlier quoted wikipedia on democratic socialism, but it appears you neglected to read the entire introduction to the article, the last paragraph of which states the following:

There is no exact definition of democratic socialism. Some forms of democratic socialism overlap with social democracy, while many forms reject social democratic reformism in favor of more transformative methods, while some forms overlap with Revolutionary Socialism. The "democratic" element may refer to extending principles of democracy in the economy (such as through cooperatives or workplace democracy), or it may refer to support for a multi-party parliamentary democracy.

Well, you got me there. Good point.

 

[untermensche]

He may mean something else when he uses the term than is commonly understood. Or maybe he really does want to supersede private property altogether, which would put him well to the left of center even in international terms.

Which is why labels do nothing but cloud the picture.

Sanders has a campaign website.

He has about three things he talks about there.

He doesn't even talk about health care.

He wants to first eat the rich, then rule as a strong arm dictator for life.

 

[SimpleDon]

Political labels have been seriously mangled lately. Sanders declaring himself to be a democratic socialist when he is a social democrat is much less a mislabeling than the reactionary, we want to rollback fifty years of social progress, Republican party calling themselves conservatives or the we-don't-need-no-government libertarians denying their anarchist's roots.