A socialist's thoughts on why Bernie isn't a good candidate

Bernie puts a lot of effort into cultivating the image of a revolutionary. He's constantly bringing up the conflict between the working class and the ruling class, and he constantly calls for a "political revolution".

Nevertheless, he's just another democrat. A democrat that takes a bit more inspiration from Scandinavia, but he's a democrat. He calls himself a socialist, but a socialist advocates for a planned economy whereas Bernie wants to keep our current economy and simply bolster our welfare programs.

Bernie is fake change.

 

Bernie Sanders is a *socialistic* Pragmatic Populist Democrat … and that's fine with me ...

 

I"m glad you understand that.

 

I see Bernie as a Democrat Socialist and he has some good advice for the economy.

 

Socialism is basically parasitic, it does nothing to create growth.

The Scandinavian countries are able to impose a fair amount of socialism only because they are also very business friendly.

The US is anything but business friendly, and more socialism here will serve to further cripple the ability to create jobs and growth.

 

No, he would be a disaster for the economy.

 

You would be right if you were talking about real socialism. The socialism that Bernie is talking about does not involve a government owning any of the means of production. Real socialism is when a government owns at least some of the means of production. Marxist Socialism is when the government owns all of the means of production including all land. What Bernie calls socialism and what some may consider socialism is that he would control wealth retention by imposing taxes on certain levels of income. That would be wealth re-distribution and one can argue that it's a form of socialism. Of cotse one could argue that any and all forms of taxation is socialism.

 

Cheer up first of all he will never be elected and if he was Congress is the real power for economic policy, taxation and spending.

So until Congress is full of guy with socialist beards we can relax.

 

The state doesn't have to own the means of production if it is so heavily controlled and regulated that it basically serves whatever the state desires.

 

I know of an aspiring presidential candidate who as V. P. could help him capture the hearts of young and somewhat angry Americans!

Or... perhaps a whole new office could be created for him..... perhaps....."Artistic Director of the NSA - CIA?!"

http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/421384-steve-d-kelly-has-interesting-platform.html

Steve D. Kelly has an interesting platform.



He sure got my attention with part 1 of his plan!

 

"don't talk about revolution, that's going a little bit too far"


[video=youtube;u52Oz-54VYw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw[/video]

 

Then you would have a highly regulated capitalism, or oligarchy or by your definition even a monarchy would fit in there. Still not socialism in the classic sense. Nazism was a highly regulated capitalistic model.

 

Oh my God # 20 said Ban Fracking I thought it was Ban something else my eyes are blurry from the Irish whiskey

 

At the very extremes the right and the left are virtually identical.

 

In fact there are ample evidences that both are finance by business entities and all they do is support their causes. However there are a few proofs that the left are a bit more socialist and the tax issue advocated by the left speaks up for the poor.

 

Bernie has zero chance of becoming president , so who the hell care .

 

You're using the word socialism wrong.

A country is either socialist or it is not. It cannot be slightly or moderately socialist. If there is private ownership of the means of production, the country is capitalist. If the means of production is owned collectively, it is socialist.

 

As far as change goes he stands out from other Democrats (to me at least) because he's willing to openly talk about corruption. You don't see Hillary covering the stuff he does. That being said, he isn't a socialist, nor would he turn America into a socialist country. I think he's a good candidate because he's honest, willing to speak his mind, and has had the same views his entire life. You don't see that often in a politician.
I mean people have called Obama a communist, so it's not surprising that the US would perceive Bernie as an actual socialist.

 

As usual, the distinction is based on the ambiguous, inconsistent Marxist definition of "means of production", which includes some things but not others even though they both are means of producing.

And look at the ten planks of Marxism and compare it to the US government. You'll see that we're far closer to socialism than we are to a market-based economy. I don't use the word "capitalism" because it's just the other side of the same statist coin that socialism belongs to.

 

While I can agree that in capitalist countries private companies own the means of productions, that isn't to say that one capitalist country can be more or less socialist than another. For example, I do consider Sweden to be a capitalist nation, but they are also more socialistic than say the US

There is a thing call Social Democracy, which at its core functions within a capitalistic society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

 

I know what social democracy is. It's just not socialism.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not exactly an ambiguous term. If it's used for production on a larger-than-personal scale, it's the means of production.

That's actually not even slightly true. I have no idea what gave you that idea.

Capitalism and and the market economics that cause it are inherently statist, because they require and build a state to defend themselves. Without a state, the capitalist would be unable to defend his claim to his property because the workers would realize his illegitimacy and seize it. Capitalism requires perpetual state violence against workers to defend property.

 

You are wanting to change the definition of socialism to cover something you do not like, regulating, structuring an economy that is being controlled by oligarchs currently. To get it away from oligarch control requires regulating it again as FDR did, and not allow the regulated write their own regulations.

We have had two economic models since the beginning of the 20th century. One helped to create the largest middle class the world has ever known, and the current one, a return to 1920s gop neoliberalism has hollowed out this nation, deindustrializing it, taking away the people making what they consume for a living wage. That is just the truth of the matter, once you shovel all of the silly partisan bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to the curb.

So regulating and structuring capitalism, so that it is an economic model that allows the citizens of a nation to thrive by their work has nothing to do with socialism. It's intelligent capitalism, using it to benefit the max number of people, instead of only a few at the top. And this is what sanders wants, a return to sanity, a return to FDR.

 

I remember the days when Congress used the power of the purse... Before Obama.

 

LOL!!!!

I stayed away from the whiskey last night myself........ some bad memories from New Year's Day about three or four years ago........ anyway..... Yeah... Mr. Steven D. Kelley is certainly one of the most courageous politicians that I have ever had the pleasure to read a book by.

As he gives his life's story up until this time it becomes obvious why he is so serious about so many important issues!

http://www.politicalforum.com/conspiracy-theories/425801-great-book-explain-ufo-cia-connection.html

A great book to explain UFO - CIA connection?

 

Yes..... astonishingly self righteous.......... totally convinced of their own correctness - rightness..... unwilling to give their opponents even the tiniest amount of credit for anything that they say or do?????!