Does Bernie Sanders understand what Democratic Socialism is?

[SonOfDaedalus]

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy.[2] Democratic socialists hold that capitalism is inherently incompatible with what they hold to be the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can be supportive of either revolutionary or reformist politics as a means to establish socialism.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

But when Bernie talks about "Democratic Socialism" he describes a Social Democracy NOT Democratic Socialism.

He does say "What Democratic Socialism means to me" but then he goes ahead and defines ordinary democrat principles that have been around since FDR. And the other countries around the world he describes are Social Democracies.

So is it that Bernie doesn't understand Democratic Socialism or is he being incredibly dishonest about what this means? In Democratic Socialism there is NO CAPITALISM. The government controls EVERYTHING not just health care.

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

But when Bernie talks about "Democratic Socialism" he describes a Social Democracy NOT Democratic Socialism.

He does say "What Democratic Socialism means to me" but then he goes ahead and defines ordinary democrat principles that have been around since FDR. And the other countries around the world he describes are Social Democracies.

So is it that Bernie doesn't understand Democratic Socialism or is he being incredibly dishonest about what this means? In Democratic Socialism there is NO CAPITALISM. The government controls EVERYTHING not just health care.

I do the same thing so it is hard for me to knock him. I describe myself as a Zen Socialist even though my socialism is actually closer to collectivism, which I do because socialism is more understood than collectivism is....it is a bit of a fudge so that the communication is more likely to take place....it is sacrificing truth for expediency which I generally oppose and dont do but I do it here.

Where you are wrong is that Bernie is most certainly not stupid...he knows exactly what he is doing.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

I describe myself as a Zen Socialist even though my socialism is actually closer to collectivism, which I do because socialism is more understood than collectivism is

In your view, what's the difference between collectivism and socialism? Isn't collectivism even more anti-individualism than socialism?

 

[Surrealistik]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

But when Bernie talks about "Democratic Socialism" he describes a Social Democracy NOT Democratic Socialism.

He does say "What Democratic Socialism means to me" but then he goes ahead and defines ordinary democrat principles that have been around since FDR. And the other countries around the world he describes are Social Democracies.

So is it that Bernie doesn't understand Democratic Socialism or is he being incredibly dishonest about what this means? In Democratic Socialism there is NO CAPITALISM. The government controls EVERYTHING not just health care.

My understanding of this has always been that he wanted to get out in front of the inevitable socialism tar and feather that undoubtedly would be (and has been) thrown at him by his opposition among the right, thus blunting its effectiveness.

Per contemporary polling on attitudes towards socialism, it has proven to be a phenomenally successful strategy.


That having been said, I think by any measure the American right has evidently much less of a clue as to what socialism means per their casual, blanket, and essentially unthinking usage of the word as a pejorative.

 

[Hawkeye10]

In your view, what's the difference between collectivism and socialism? Isn't collectivism even more anti-individualism than socialism?

I dont know that I want to get into that here because it is tangential to my point, which is that I think that Bernie does what he does because of some combination of the ignorance of his audience and because the english language poorly supports what he is trying to say. Bernie has been for a long time a salesman, that his audience can follow him is more important than that he speaks truth perfectly. Maybe to we need to talk about how in these decayed times making the sale tends to be more important to the seller than honesty is.

 

[Mithrae]

So is it that Bernie doesn't understand Democratic Socialism or is he being incredibly dishonest about what this means? In Democratic Socialism there is NO CAPITALISM. The government controls EVERYTHING not just health care.

Funny that you're having a go at Sanders while displaying such astonishing misunderstanding of your own. "Social ownership of the means of production" does not require social control over scary-caps everything, and nor does it require government control over businesses; for example worker co-operatives are another model for social ownership, as opposed to capital ownership. That, or other non-centralized models, is pretty explicitly emphasized in your own quote, for crying out loud:
"with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy."

 

[JackA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

But when Bernie talks about "Democratic Socialism" he describes a Social Democracy NOT Democratic Socialism.

He does say "What Democratic Socialism means to me" but then he goes ahead and defines ordinary democrat principles that have been around since FDR. And the other countries around the world he describes are Social Democracies.

So is it that Bernie doesn't understand Democratic Socialism or is he being incredibly dishonest about what this means? In Democratic Socialism there is NO CAPITALISM. The government controls EVERYTHING not just health care.

Few politicians are as honest or straight forward as Sanders. He is a clear advocate for socialized medicine and other government funded programs to advance social causes. He talks in intelligible complete sentences. Ignore the labels. Sometimes he terms himself loosely as a “socialist”, without modification. He’s not. He’s a liberal believer in the ability of government to advance the public good with government money. Listen to him, read what he writes, and you’ll get a clear picture of a real political leader, a polar opposite to a self serving manipulator like Trump.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

That having been said, I think by any measure the American right has evidently much less of a clue as to what socialism means per their casual, blanket, and essentially unthinking usage of the word as a pejorative.

That's one of my biggest criticism of the American right. They talk about socialism but don't understand the basic definition of socialism. Then they say idiotic things like labeling Hillary and Obama socialists which is laughable. That's why I'm so disappointed to find that Bernie is using a false definition of Democratic Socialism. Cuba is (was?) a Democratic Socialist country. Sweden is not.

It makes me feel like he's hiding his true socialist beliefs because they're unpopular. That concerns me.

 

[Surrealistik]

That's one of my biggest criticism of the American right. They talk about socialism but don't understand the basic definition of socialism. Then they say idiotic things like labeling Hillary and Obama socialists which is laughable. That's why I'm so disappointed to find that Bernie is using a false definition of Democratic Socialism. Cuba is (was?) a Democratic Socialist country. Sweden is not.

It makes me feel like he's hiding his true socialist beliefs because they're unpopular. That concerns me.

I think it is _vastly_ more likely he's getting out ahead of the use of socialism as a pejorative per my description than engaging in some kind of weird CT type dogwhistle regarding a hidden agenda to nationalize the economy.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

for example worker co-operatives are another model for social ownership, as opposed to capital ownership. That, or other non-centralized models, is pretty explicitly emphasized in your own quote, for crying out loud:
"with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy."

You have a fair point. I didn't consider worker co-ops but how do you get from private ownership to worker co-ops? These radical changes to the economy.

I'm not anti-socialist or anti-capitalist. I just don't subscribe to any economic ideology. I believe in small pragmatic tested changes. I could support Bernie if I'm convinced of his pragmatism.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Few politicians are as honest or straight forward as Sanders. He is a clear advocate for socialized medicine and other government funded programs to advance social causes. He talks in intelligible complete sentences. Ignore the labels. Sometimes he terms himself loosely as a “socialist”, without modification. He’s not. He’s a liberal believer in the ability of government to advance the public good with government money. Listen to him, read what he writes, and you’ll get a clear picture of a real political leader, a polar opposite to a self serving manipulator like Trump.

The devil is in the details of who must provide that "government money" and how much of the "public good" that they will (might or may?) receive for making their "fair share" contribution. The basis for funding these socialist dream programs is the hard part to sell to the public - it always sounds so nice to be promised "free" goods/services until you realize how much of the bill you are expected to pay. Loads of folks want those promised "free" hamburgers but few are willing to make them. The question of why these socialist programs for the public good cannot exist at the state/local government level, for all to see their wondrous outcome, is carefully avoided.

 

[Surrealistik]

The devil is in the details of who must provide that "government money" and how much of the "public good" that they will (might or may?) receive for making their "fair share" contribution. The basis for funding these socialist dream programs is the hard part to sell to the public - it always sounds so nice to be promised "free" goods/services until you realize how much of the bill you are expected to pay. Loads of folks want those promised "free" hamburgers but few are willing to make them. The question of why these socialist programs for the public good cannot exist at the state/local government level, for all to see their wondrous outcome, is carefully avoided.

At the moment MFA has ~70% aggregate support; I suspect support would still be majoritarian if say it were contingent on increased payroll taxes.

As to testing these programs stateside, if only it were that easy; as mentioned in another thread, attempts to do so have been defeated on behalf of donors (RE: Anthony Rendon, California), and it can probably only really work with states that have larger economies which would afford the govt sufficient bargaining power to tramp down costs at the provider and supplier levels.

Lastly, I've never really seen progressives pushing MFA trying to 'carefully avoid' state level experimentation. Again, we gave it an earnest effort in Cali where it could conceivably work, and it was immediately spiked by a donor shill without any discussion/exploration.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

The basis for funding these socialist dream programs is the hard part to sell to the public - it always sounds so nice to be promised "free" goods/services until you realize how much of the bill you are expected to pay.

The goal is not to give people "free" stuff. Public education is "free" stuff but even the rich man who pays for private school benefits from a better-educated workforce. And when you institute programs you should act more like a scientist testing a theory and test your ideas at smaller scales and gradually ramp things up.

For example, universal health care sounds like "free" stuff. But if done like it is in other developed countries it will result in most people paying less. And even the rich capitalist benefits from not having to provide health care for his workers and the existence of a safety net for himself. Universal health care has been tested and is successful in other developed nations. And it doesn't mean you can't have supplemental private insurance.

I think "free stuff" is a simplistic view.

 

[ttwtt78640]

At the moment MFA has ~70% aggregate support; I suspect support would still be majoritarian if say it were contingent on increased payroll taxes.

As to testing these programs stateside, if only it were that easy; as mentioned in another thread, attempts to do so have been defeated on behalf of donors (RE: Anthony Rendon, California), and it can probably only really work with states that have larger economies which would afford the govt sufficient bargaining power to tramp down costs at the provider and supplier levels.

Lastly, I've never really seen progressives pushing MFA trying to 'carefully avoid' state level experimentation. Again, we gave it an earnest effort in Cali where it could conceivably work, and it was immediately spiked by a donor shill without any discussion/exploration.

The classic it was attempted at the state/local level (but failed to even get off the ground?) yet it would surely work nationally argument is seen again.

 

[davidhume]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

But when Bernie talks about "Democratic Socialism" he describes a Social Democracy NOT Democratic Socialism.

He does say "What Democratic Socialism means to me" but then he goes ahead and defines ordinary democrat principles that have been around since FDR. And the other countries around the world he describes are Social Democracies.

So is it that Bernie doesn't understand Democratic Socialism or is he being incredibly dishonest about what this means? In Democratic Socialism there is NO CAPITALISM. The government controls EVERYTHING not just health care.

You forgot to call Sanders a commie.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The goal is not to give people "free" stuff. Public education is "free" stuff but even the rich man who pays for private school benefits from a better-educated workforce. And when you institute programs you should act more like a scientist testing a theory and test your ideas at smaller scales and gradually ramp things up.

For example, universal health care sounds like "free" stuff. But if done like it is in other developed countries it will result in most people paying less. And even the rich capitalist benefits from not having to provide health care for his workers and the existence of a safety net for himself. Universal health care has been tested and is successful in other developed nations. And it doesn't mean you can't have supplemental private insurance.

I think "free stuff" is a simplistic view.

Hmm... that (bolded above) is done constantly by private entities yet would not work for government because???

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

You forgot to call Sanders a commie.

Why would I do that? He's never claimed to be a communist. He claimed to be a "Democratic Socialist."

By the way, David Hume is one of my favorite philosophers.

I always took Bernie at his world regarding the definition of Democratic Socialism. It's not something I'm familiar with. But some right-wing YouTuber was arguing that Bernie's definition is wrong. I looked into it and it is wrong. Bernie is describing a Social Democracy where socialist institutions exist alongside capitalist enterprises.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Hmm... that (bolded above) is done constantly by private entities yet would not work for government because???

Governments test programs all the time. They have pilot programs. I wish they would do it more often.

 

[davidhume]

Why would I do that? He's never claimed to be a communist. He claimed to be a "Democratic Socialist."

By the way, David Hume is one of my favorite philosophers.

I always took Bernie at his world regarding the definition of Democratic Socialism. It's not something I'm familiar with. But some right-wing YouTuber was arguing that Bernie's definition is wrong. I looked into it and it is wrong. Bernie is describing a Social Democracy where socialist institutions exist alongside capitalist enterprises.

Social democracy is more commonly expressed in Europe. It is not anti-capitalist. It's more about not letting those who become powerful in a capitalist economy take over government.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Social democracy is more commonly expressed in Europe. It is not anti-capitalist. It's more about not letting those who become powerful in a capitalist economy take over government.

But Bernie called himself a "Democratic Socialist"that's not the same thing as the European social democracies. I find this very confusing. He's an intelligent man. Why would he call himself a Democratic Socialist if he is only someone who believes in social democracy? Social democracy is very popular but Democratic Socialism is not.

 

[JackA]

The devil is in the details of who must provide that "government money" and how much of the "public good" that they will (might or may?) receive for making their "fair share" contribution. The basis for funding these socialist dream programs is the hard part to sell to the public - it always sounds so nice to be promised "free" goods/services until you realize how much of the bill you are expected to pay. Loads of folks want those promised "free" hamburgers but few are willing to make them. The question of why these socialist programs for the public good cannot exist at the state/local government level, for all to see their wondrous outcome, is carefully avoided.

Perhaps you live in a locale of true individualists, disposing of your own rubbish and garbage, getting along without public roads, and other such things of ready convenience paid with tax dollars. Where I live these public programs are not “carefully avoided.” Health care is a logical nationally funded program. Every major democracy except ours has it. We have ingenuously undertaken to pay for two expensive health care industries instead of one, healthcare itself and healthcare insurance. Sanders is the clearest voice in politics arguing to change that.

 

[Surrealistik]

The classic it was attempted at the state/local level (but failed to even get off the ground?) yet it would surely work nationally argument is seen again.

I just explained specifically why it failed to get off the ground: not because it was unviable, unpopular, or unworkable, but because it didn't agree with the sensibilities of megadonors and their minions; why should this be an argument against national level implementation? Indeed, I suspect a big reason why Rendon's donors were so insistent on spiking it was so that there would not be a proof of concept to advance the agenda of a national level MFA, or a trend set that might encourage other states to adopt MFA style legislation.

 

[davidhume]

But Bernie called himself a "Democratic Socialist"that's not the same thing as the European social democracies. I find this very confusing. He's an intelligent man. Why would he call himself a Democratic Socialist if he is only someone who believes in social democracy? Social democracy is very popular but Democratic Socialism is not.

I don't see any value in debating terminology. Read Sanders' website if you want to know what policies he advocates.

 

[Mr Person]

Few people understand much of anything, let alone "socialism". Government ownership of the means of production shouldn't be so tough, but then, there you go....Obamacare is "socialism" to many.

That said, it borders on miracle that matter and energy interacted in ways creating a self-sustaining systems, and nearly-infinitely moreso that these resulted in the possibility of such a system worrying about that question. There's always that....





Shame what most of the lot did with it.

 

[davidhume]

Few people understand much of anything.

That's ok.