Bernie Sanders is Not a Socialist

For those Americans still unaware.

Don't be scared off by Bernie proclaiming himself to be a Socialist, he is no such thing. He's not going to nationalize Walmart.

Contrary to what basically everyone seems to think, social welfare is only Socialist is as much as it's public charity, essentially. But that's not really a sector of the economy. Also, economic regulation is also not Socialist, because those regulations don't transfer to the government ownership of some part of the economy, it simply tells people what they can and cannot do, just like any law NOT regarding business.

What "Socialism" really refers to is public ownership of the means of production - ie, as I said, nationalizing Walmart instead of leaving it a private company. Bernie Sanders says he's a Democratic Socialist - what that would mean, if he knew what that meant, is that he wants to eliminate the private sector and have the entire economy be publicly run via a democratic government. That isn't what he means, but that's because like almost all Americans, he doesn't know what Socialism is.

He's a Social Democrat at most, and a Social Liberal at least (the former uses more social engineering, the latter is more 'live-and-let-live'), leaning towards the latter.

He's not coming to take your property, and your local car wash will not be run by the Feds. Calm down.

 

Your definition of socialism needs updating. You are confusing it with communism which advocates state ownership of the means of production. Socialism can mean this for certain vital industries and services such as transport, defense, education, penitentiaries, and so on, but it can also mean the regulation of production, distribution, and exchange being under public (state) control. So, under socialism, Wal-Mart need not be owned by the public but the company's labor policies would most certainly be regulated to insure a living wage and proper employment contracts for the workers.

 

So you're saying Bernie Sanders is an idiot who doesn't even understand the very ideology he has aligned himself with for many decades. Good to know.

 

That's incorrect. Socialism is public ownership of industry. Communism is kind of bat(*)(*)(*)(*) ridiculous in the way it posits running the economy. In a communist society, the economy isn't even publicly owned - NO ONE owns ANYTHING by themselves, all property is owned by EVERYONE. Things are produced not by public co-operative but out of pure charity. There is no money. There isn't even a government. No one gets paid anything. No one tells anyone what to do. Apparently everyone will just "do it" out of some unexplained compulsion they will all feel. It's not even really something you can feasibly create in reality, it's absolutely insane and virtually impossible.

 

When and where did you study political economy, I wonder. Your language seems to date back to the beginning of the last century.

 

I would think the people who founded the ideology would be the best to define what it is, not what people nowadays assign to the label. They can insist all they want that the Nordics are socialist countries - any doctrinaire socialist would tell you they're not, because the government doesn't run the economy. They're social democracies, capitalist countries that try to achieve socialist societal aims without actually having a social economy.

And communism is....what communism is. A class-less, money-less, ungoverned communal society that does all work on pure charity. I don't know what YOU think Communism is, but that's what Communism is.

 

There are countries where all the means of production are not state-run but a sufficient number are to describe them correctly as socialist. When the state manages the transport system, buses, air traffic control and airlines, telecommunications, posts and telegraphs, television licensing, hospitals and health care, schools, the military, prisons, police, lotteries, public housing, electricity, water, gas, infrastructure roads, sewage, agricultural subsidies and co-operatives, banks, and so on, then that is socialist enough for many on the left.

 

Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, but he's still the $18 Trillion Candidate.

"The goal of socialism is communism" -Vladimir Lenin

 

You can have a sliding scale sure, but until you start having the government take over industries where it hasn't been proven to be more effective than a market, like, say, the production of daily consumables, it's only partially socialist. Hell that actually gives it too much credit - it's more like capitalism with socialism plugging the holes.

 

Bernie is an American Socialist; not the type of Socialism attributed to Karl Marx.

 

So, he is not planning to take my property(taxation) to fund unnecessary educations? Many business owners, inventors and high paid workers today did not need or go to college. Most tasks/jobs of survival require no college education. Yet, Bernie and other socialist believe they have a right to take my "property" and use it to fund others luxuries.

 

According to the brain-dead brigade, anyone to the left of King Louis XIV and/or smarter than the Tea Party and/or anyone who disagrees with their delusion du jour (this includes most of humanity, by the way) is a SOCIALIST!!!

 

Actually, you're the one that's confused. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. Communism is socialism without classes or the state.

 

haven't we heard all this before? the road to socialism isn't socialism, it's only a road. the government isn't taking over the means of production, it's only regulating it to such an extent that those with the true ownership must do as the government demands. social welfare isn't a sector of the economy, it merely bleeds the productive elements of the economy dry. this is the same demented logic used by the fools who keep telling us that bam-bam is right of center because he cozies up to big business.

so, is bernie a socialist? no, not really. like the rest of modern western liberalism, he espouses the economic policies of fascism. they would have the means of production and all the liabilities of production left in the hands of the private sector, but so restricted by the state that true ownership becomes irrelevant. they would legislate into effect outrageous pay scales and tax our productivity excessively so that the state could throw crumbs to the poor and make itself fat off of its cut. they would demand that the state designate which industries were most useful to its agenda, tossing billions into the coffers of its cronies at the expense of the truly productive and, at every step, enhancing the war-chests of the party faithful.

of course, we can't call these people fascists. the brilliant ivory tower thinkers have designated fascism as a "right wing" philosophy and these people have aligned themselves firmly with the left side of the spectrum. fascism is an ideology of hatred and violence, while today's liberal is an enlightened pacifist. the reality is really rather sad. there is no right and left. socialism is merely authoritarian state-capitalism and communism doesn't exist at all, except in small corners of the capitalistic whole. political animals like to spout socialistic drivel, it endears them to the fools of the electorate, but they are as much capitalists as the captains of industry that rule the corporate stratosphere.

 

Socialists/Communists always disagree with each other over ideological purity, so it's no surprise that some believe that Sanders isn't Super Socialist. This is the reason why communist countries always start eating their own just as soon as they can.

To people who believe in the notion of private property, socialists (and their inevitable communist cousins) are quite easy to identify.

If you think that somebody is rich enough, you might be a socialist.
If you think that somebody has too many yachts, you might be a socialist.
If you think that somebody should give you money because you're hungry, you might be a socialist.

Back when I was young and foolish, some bum asked me to help him out with a dollar. After I pulled a dollar out of my wallet, he saw there were a lot more dollars in there and asked for five. When I told him "no", he got angry.

That guy was a socialist.

Starting to see a common trait developing? Socialists see what other people have, and if they don't have as much, they get this strange idea about sharing the wealth. Forget all of this ownership of the means of production nonsense. That's certainly part of it, but they don't really want ownership of the means of production unless it's making a profit. A company that is worth a million dollars, but has debts of two million dollars isn't something they want.

 

There are socialist political figures that take this approach, but they're more aptly described as social democrats rather than socialists.

 

Like north korea?

 

Uh, Kim is definitely a Communist.

 

and they routinely hold elections to maintain their democratic status...

 

I'll take the man at his word. Sanders is one of the most honest politicians in Washington and deserves kudos for that. If he says he is a socialist, that is good enough for me. I do not think I would call the man a liar.

 

"Socialism is the state ownership and control of the means and results of production." Leonard E. Read

Under said definition I understand how people, including Sanders himself, would be considered a socialist.

 

I think you may well be right, but if you are it means that Bernie is too dumb to know the definition of "socialist." If that is the case, do we want this guy as POTUS?

 

Ya, what we need is a national Socialist Marxist movement similar to East Germany from 1949 to 1990. The Marxist reconstruction of East Germany was so magnificent, wasn't it Heinrich? Why if we emulate the East German politics, methods and ideology we can have our own STASI, wouldn't that be great? We wouldn't need a wall to keep people out of America on the contrary we'd need walls to keep people in.

 

I do not believe this will be voted the best post for October.

 

I am sorry but i do not know what you are getting at.