General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders is technically a social democrat, not a democratic socialist
In the U.S., the term "democratic socialism" conjures up the image of Senator Bernie Sanders. However, when we analyze his specific policies, it is clear that he's not a genuine socialist, but rather a social democrat. Bernie Sanders does not have plans for the government to nationalize all industry and turn over the ownership of the factories from executives and shareholders to the workers. Nor does he have plans to expropriate owned land and abolish private property. Nor does he have plans to abolish the profit motive and replace the regulated free market.
In fact, in a conversation with The Brookings Institution, Senator Sanders explicitly expressed his support for the capitalist mode of production. While Senator Sanders opposes casino capitalism and runaway capitalism, he supports market capitalism in general, and doesn't seek to abolish it. Sanders asserts that market capitalism serves as a good basic framework for an economy, feeling it generates wealth, creates vibrant small businesses, and empowers creative entrepreneurs. Marxists, and traditional socialists in general, find Senator Sanders extremely conservative compared to themselves.
What Senator Sanders proposes is mild social democracy (left capitalism), not a revolution, despite using the word "revolution" his interviews and speeches. While Sanders is perceived to be "left-wing" or "far-left" in America, if Bernie Sanders were in France, he would be right where President Francois Hollande is on the political spectrum. In Canada, Sanders would be a run-of-the-mill NDP politician (and the NDP is expected to win the upcoming Canadian federal elections). In the UK, Sanders would probably sit in the left-wing of the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn is much further left than Bernie, for example. And all of these are the major, and often governing, center-left parties of their respective nations. Indeed, Bernie Sanders would fit in quite comfortably in the mainstream center-left political parties in Western Europe and Scandinavia, given that in those countries, many of his preferred policies are already the status quo. Most likely, political parties to the left of mainstream center-left parties in Europe would find Sanders way too conservative. For example, Sanders is significantly, significantly to the right of Greece's Syriza, which is a coalition of various radical leftist groups.
If millions of people in the U.S. truly went on a general strike and ground our economy to a halt to demand anything, Senator Sanders would be appalled. Senator Sanders merely seeks to regulate the market capitalist economy more effectively while strengthening the social safety net. He does not desire to abolish capitalism and replace it with the public ownership over the means of production, distribution, and exchange. When questioned on what exactly he means by the term "democratic socialism," Bernie Sanders points to the mainstream social democratic and labor governments in Western Europe. Sanders' inaccurate conflation of socialism with social democracy resembles the rhetoric of former Swedish Prime Minister, Olof Palme, a fellow social democrat.
Capitalism and socialism are often ill-defined and vague terms, so before we continue this discussion, I wanted to provide the technical, precise definitions for both. Capitalism and socialism describe fundamentally divergent forms of social ownership. Under capitalism, the commodities that workers produce are owned and sold by another party (the business manager) for a profit. These profits accrue to the capitalists and business owners rather than to the workers themselves. Capitalists are the ones who own and direct the means of production, including raw materials, natural resources, factories, machines, and entrepreneurship. In contrast, under socialism, workers themselves own the products and services they produce. The community democratically directs distribution and exchange, and collectively owns economic inputs. Socialists furthermore oppose capitalist business hierarchies and traditional employer-employee relationships.
Socialism, by definition, is the social ownership of productive property. That means that productive property (factories, farms, workshops, the like) is owned either by a democratic state or directly by the workers themselves. It is not the case that this merely a "strict" definition of socialism, in that broader definitions of socialism include social democracy. This is just what the word means. This is the definition to which academics, socialist activists, socialist philosophers, and prominent socialist thinkers throughout history have adhered, as economist Richard D. Wolff has often elaborated.
Socialism is not raising the minimum wage, raising the top marginal tax rates, providing public roads and infrastructure, redistributing wealth, guaranteeing healthcare as a right. or promoting a strong social safety net. These are simply government interventions that can exist in both capitalist and socialist systems.
Similarly, capitalism on a fundamental level is not about excessive greed, corporatism, cronyism, unregulated free-trade, the dominance of investment banks, environmental degradation, unsustainable growth, poor healthcare, exorbitant inequality, and corporate influence of money in politics. If an economic system retains commercial private property, private businesses, private ownership over capital, capital accumulation, market-based distribution, and the profit-incentive, despite what interventions and regulations you put on that system, it is still fundamentally a capitalist economy.
Socialism promises an alternative method of social organization in which there is workplace democracy. If one believes that the capitalist system is "fine if we just tinker with it" along the lines of Scandinavia, then they are a social democrat. However, if they believe that capitalism must be replaced, then they are a genuine socialist.
Somewhat confusingly, despite having nearly identical names, "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" are very distinct concepts. Modern "social democrats" support maintaining market capitalism, whereas "democratic socialists" seek to eradicate the capitalist system and replace it with socialism through democratic, non-revolutionary means.
Social democracy "is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, redistribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to representative democracy. Social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater egalitarian, democratic and solidaristic outcomes. 'Social democracy' is often used in this manner to refer to the social and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the latter half of the 20th century." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
In contrast, 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.
However, 'democratic socialism' is sometimes erroneously used as a synonym for social democracy, where 'social democracy' refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
Remember that "socialism" is distinct from "social democratic" policies. Many people incorrectly conflate welfare policies and state intervention in the market with socialism. Technically, Sweden isn't more "socialist" than America; rather, it just has a stronger welfare state to deal with inequality and other market failures. Scandinavia and Northern Europe are fundamentally private enterprise market economies. They are vigorously capitalist in their economic organization.
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc., have rather stringent rules on protecting private property. These countries use money as their medium of exchange, have private ownership over capital, have mostly privately held businesses, have robust stock exchanges, have financial sectors, promote private-sector entrepreneurship, have competition, and utilize the profit-incentive to coordinate distribution over the free market. In Scandinavia, there aren't many state owned enterprises, some sectors of the economy are lightly regulated, free-trade is promoted, and companies that fail aren't bailed out. Scandinavian countries often score high on economic freedom measures, sometimes higher than the U.S. in some areas. Income and wealth inequality, poverty, and unequal outcomes exist in these countries.
What Sweden has is a large social welfare system bolted onto its highly capitalist economy, but that does not make Sweden any less "capitalist" or make it more "socialist." Nordic countries are market-based, meritocratic, competitive, innovative, open economies that care enough about fairness to justify relatively high marginal income tax rates to temper capitalism's harsher effects. Their models have very little to do with socialism as the term has traditionally been defined. Sweden, Norway, Denmark etc., retain the capitalist mode of production and don't seek to overturn it anytime soon, so they are social democracies, not socialist countries. Sweden is a "social democracy," not a "democratic socialist" county.
This confusion is understandable: the word "socialism" is constantly misused in colloquial language. The abuse of the term is perpetuated by the media, public, and some politicians. While the term is used incorrectly among the public in both America in Europe, Europeans are much more likely to know the difference between social democracy and socialism. However, people in the U.S. tend believe that a "socialist" is a big government, tax and spend leftist. This is in no small part due to conservative propaganda that slaps the "socialist" label onto any remotely center-left policy to delegitimize it.
However, leftists are also complicit in perpetuating this misunderstanding and not making clear distinctions. Various leftists in the U.S., including Bernie Sanders, have attempted to claim the term "socialism" for their own preferred welfare-state policies. Yet, they are also confusing the terminology. Genuine socialists who support economic democracy are among the first people to object to social democrats calling themselves "socialists" or "democratic socialists." Socialists are frustrated because there are leftists who identify as something that is literally not socialist by definition, and advocate positions that are actually against socialism, but call themselves socialists anyway. Some argue that through humanizing capitalism and making it palatable to the masses, social democrats are a bigger threat to the socialist cause than proponents of unfettered capitalism.
I myself, am a social democrat, not a socialist or a democratic socialist. If you took a spectrum of market capitalism, and looked at the left-wing end of the spectrum, "social democracy" would fall under there. "Social democracy," while still being a form of capitalism, is essentially the last train stop before you get to genuine socialism. To me, social democracy is superior to both more neoliberal manifestations of capitalism on the right and genuine forms of socialism on the left. If I lived in Sweden, I would be a conservative in the sense that the political-economic status quo would largely satisfy me.
But I do think that it's important to point out these distinctions and to use the proper, formal definitions of these terms to ensure nuanced discourse and precision. I like 95% of what Bernie Sanders is proposing, and I'm voting for him as president, but he's not a true "socialist" or "democratic socialist" using the formal, non-colloquial definitions of these terms.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)you're completely right about that, haha.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)Good luck with this thread; here's the kind of thing your explanation is up against: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251522639
safeinOhio
(32,720 posts)Fascists. Yet, few dare to call them what they are..
brooklynite
(94,729 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)People will see what Bernie talks about, and that will continue to help 'rehabilitate' the word socialism with voters. They'll vote for Bernie based on what he says, not on the word 'socialism'.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Democratic Socialist.
This is the same problem many Republicans have been falling into over the last 8-10 years. When someone videotapes you saying something like "Macaca" or "47% of the country is dependent on government" or any other turn off statement, it's nearly impossible to fight.
And the above examples I made were singular instances.
You are certainly not going to be able to fight Bernie self-ID'ing as a Socialist with nuance. The video is going to be much more persuasive than any nuanced argument.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)to 'rehabilitate' the word socialism. Bernie being seen as a 'socialist' will go a long way towards pulling America back to the left and making Americans willing to consider more socialist policies. As I've noted before, Bernie is the first step in making the country more socialist, not the end product. What would I actually like to see during a Bernie Presidency that are more 'socialist' seeming to Americans? Tighter regulation on capitalists, policies that encourage more profit sharing, more co-ops, more employee-owned businesses, tighter salary ranges between the lowest-paid employee of a company (INCLUDING 'subcontractors') and the highest.
(Note that I say 'encourage', not 'require'. So you wouldn't necessarily have laws forcing companies to do so, but regulations dealing with awarding federal contracts that make it more likely that companies who split the profits with the workforce and with low CEO to 'grunt' pay differentials get such contracts rather than companies where the shareholders and execs rake in all the loot.)
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Bernie acts like any other American politician sometimes, and he simply goes with the people he represents in Vermont. On other issues, he gets traction by citing European socialists memes, and sometimes he moves pretty close to the Socialist Party USA. It seems that he picks what he thinks that his target group wants - with a touch of rebelliousness to get attention, and a bit of populist sentiment. Bernie does not, to me, represent a solid social value. He clearly focuses on economic justice, but has overlooked social justice on occasion. At least recently, Bernie has avoided discussions of "socialism" or "democratic socialists" since he is well aware that being labeled will be bad for the campaign, and very few people know or care about nuanced differences in definitions. Just a couple examples:
On some issues, Bernie sounds exactly like quotes you can find on the socialist party websites if you hunt around:
http://socialistparty-usa.net
Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. By revolution we mean a radical and fundamental change in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations.
So-called fair trade is meaningless as long as the world economy is dominated by a few massive corporations.
We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.
We call for the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks that benefit corporations and all other forms of corporate welfare.
We oppose the court-created precedent of corporate personhood that illegitimately gives corporations rights that were intended for human beings.
On the other hand, Bernie is notably different on clearly social issues like gun control compared to Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark; here's one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Finland
Finland[edit]
Main article: Gun politics in Finland
The ownership and use of firearms in Finland is regulated by the country's Firearms Act of 1998. Weapons are individually licensed by local police forces, there is no limit on the number of licenses an individual may hold. Licenses are granted for recreational uses, exhibition or (under certain circumstances) professional use. No type of weapon is explicitly prohibited, but licences are granted only for a reason. In general, this excludes all but hunting and sports guns from non-professional use.
With the exception of law enforcement, only specially trained security guards may carry loaded weapons in public. There is almost no regulation of air rifles or crossbows, except that it is illegal to carry or fire them in public. Guns are divided into 13 firearms categories and four action categories; some of which are limited. Fully automatic weapons, rockets and cannons (so called "destructive" weapons), for example, are generally not permitted.
In November 2007 Finland updated their gun laws, pre-empting a new EU directive prohibiting the carrying of firearms by under-18's by removing the ability of 15- to 18-year-olds to carry hunting rifles under parental guidance. In 2011, after controversial high school shootings in 2008 prompted government review, a constitutional law committee concluded that people over the age of 20 can receive a permit for semiautomatic handguns. Though individuals have to show a continuous activity in a handguns sporting for last two years before they can have a license for their own gun.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/#ixzz3c673QCfm
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/07/10/bernies-big-break-with-the-left-on-guns
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Everybody already knew Bernie veers right on guns, but what 'other' social issues 'like' gun control is Bernie 'notably different on' compared to Finland, et al?
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Bernie has supported the military establishment more than I would like. He was often criticized on socialist and green websites. My observation (and discussions with buds from Norway and Finland) see a different level of support or goals for the military. Scandinavians are very tired of "invasions" so they would not put hundreds of military bases everywhere. Pretty much defensive only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_defence_union
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosio
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/30/the-myth-of-bernie-sanders/
http://socialistworker.org/2012/08/09/vermont-says-no-to-the-f35
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2015/02/hypocrisy-alert-bernie-sanders-wanting.html
http://muckraker-gg.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-lockheed-and-sandia-came-to-vermont.html
http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363
http://gui.afsc.org/birddog/bernie-sanders-calls-out-defense-contractors-and-lobbyists
https://thewordsmithcollection.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-supports-the-right-wing-war-lobby/
-------------------------
Bernie's Robin Hood tax is bad for union and public employee retirement funds. This is one reason some unions like FEA/AFT have not endorsed him. His way to pay for education is ultimately paid for by taxing many regular state pensions. You'd have to study this a bit to see how it works, but Hillary's plan is better. Here in FL there are 200 billion in state employee funds that would be taxed by the Bernie tax. Besides the way he pays for education, Bernie suggests controls for education that seem different than Scandinavia.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/31/why-free-college-is-really-expensive.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/29/1388484/-Bernie-Sanders-big-idea-has-a-math-problem#
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/36vmm8/what_are_some_legitimate_arguments_against_bernie/
http://chronicle.com/article/Bernie-Sanderss-Charming/231387?cid=megamenu
http://www.sbafla.com/fsb/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/08/Pros-and-Cons-Bernie-Sanders-50-Billion-Tax-Idea
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000287-Financial-Transaction-Taxes-in-Theory-and-Practice.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/22/bernie-sanders-doesnt-have-a-case-for-a-financial-transactions-tax-it-would-lose-money/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opinion/the-case-for-a-tax-on-financial-transactions.html?_r=0
One example:
Apparently (according to a tax lawyer who was running around one of the earlier threads), there was no exception for 401k's, meaning that every time the mutual funds in your retirement fund rebalance, which should be a few times a year, you're paying a tax and losing money from your retirement.
Edit: just used the calculator found here to calculate the costs of 0.5% over 40 years assuming you were investing just $5500/year (the max allowable to an IRA). Using these assumptions, this tax would cost you, the average investor, $157,000 over the 40 years you're investing. This is money that I'm sure you'd prefer going towards your retirement.
Note: this isn't 100% accurate as I'm treating this as an addition to the expense ratio which isn't totally correct, but it's a ballpark figure to give the tax some context
----------------
Bernie seems similar to Scandinavia's views on immigration (a little restrictive), but he has not addressed the issue of tuition fees for non-citizens. Even in Scandinavia this is getting some attention [ http://www.studyinfinland.fi/tuition_and_scholarships/tuition_fees/recent_news ]. For example, and I realize it's not completely Bernie's choice, Vermont is a state that does NOT have tuition equity for colleges for immigrants. In NY and Maryland, for example, an "undocumented" immigrant brought to the US as a child would likely grow up and pay in state tuition. In Vermont, they would pay "out of state" or "international" tuition. Hillary and Martin have advocated for those equity laws. I can get you links if you want, but Bernie has been silent at the minimum on that issue, even while advocating for "free tuition". That's something that the 25% in Fl born outside of the US have noticed.
One issue is the path-to-citizenship that Hillary and others have advocated for a while. The other is social justice for those in the US already and undocumented. Again, Bernie picks and chooses. He is for free tuition, but to have social justice there would need to be a strong position on getting citizenship (so tuition is free) or else allowing an undocumented person brought to the US as a child who grew up here to get an education without documentation while policies are sorted out. There may be as many as 30 million "Americans" in this boat (pun intended). Certainly, the low estimates are 10 million. No one knows.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Nurses have been agitating for the Robin Hood tax for quite a while. I guess nurses understand that everyone paying their fair share includes them too.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)I don't know. We have some business faculty, lawyers, and pretty good accountants who are opposed to the Robin Hood tax. My next state meeting is in a couple weeks. We'll see if it comes up.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)('stamp duty', or 'stamp duty reserve tax'), and mutual funds and pension funds do not get an exception. The UK stock market, and funds, manage OK. The calculation the guy on reddit did isn't meaningful - it assumes a fund would sell its entire portfolio each year. That might be true for aggressive funds out to make quick, high but risky returns, but not for funds that invest for the long term (such as pension funds). $5,500 over 40 years is not 'the average investor', either.
Your links don't point to any union opposing the tax. The ones with definite opposition, like the Tim Worstall piece, are from free market supporters (like Worstall). The Tax Policy Center model estimates the tax would be strongly progressive - 40% of the income coming from the top 1% of earners, 75% from the top 20%.
" This is one reason some unions like FEA/AFT have not endorsed him" - are you sure? From the 2014 AFT national conference in Los Angeles:
- See more at: http://fearetired.fea.aft.org/news/weingarten-lays-out-bold-call-move-country-forward#sthash.q6VwKCwW.dpuf
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Florida, like many states, has BILLIONS in retirement funds invested and traded daily. That includes stocks, bonds, hedge funds, etc. Florida employs over 200 "brokers" to manage their fund.
Those trades would be taxed by Bernie's FTT. If the funds are short, then the state pays the employees less or asks the employees to contribute more or else they reduce benefits. All the taxes over years of trades would simply be passed to the hard working public employee. The tax loss would be compounded.
No matter how you look at it, our union would oppose any transaction tax unless it excluded state and union negotiated retirements. We'd prefer capital gains or closing loophole or a block grant program (for states) that forces legislatures to support public colleges - or else they would just take the money and raise tuition anyway. That's why Hillary's proposal is better; it prevents the states from simply siphoning the money.
At any rate, there may be an exception for individual retirements, but Bernie's tax would not make an exception for large state investment funds (as currently proposed).
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)(H.R. 1464), introduced by Representative Ellison, and its Senate companion bill (S. 1371), introduced by Senator
Sanders. In addition, the Congressional Progressive Caucus FY 2016 budget (The Peoples Budget) includes a
financial transaction tax.
All of the various FTT proposals would raise a significant amount of desperately needed revenue. Center for
Economic and Policy Research estimates that a tax comparable to various EU proposals would raise more than $130
billion a yearor more than $1.5 trillion over the next decade.
The FTT is an idea whose time has come. We urge you to co-sponsor and support H.R. 1464.
http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/159771/3956371/file/AFL-CIO%20FTT%20Support%20letter%20205%20mg_HSC.pdf
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Our state polls for the unions I'm familiar with don't get into asking about FTTs. At our meetings, there have been discussions with officers and members. Some of those are AFT folks. I don't know if the bill you cite is exactly the same as Bernie's Robin Hood tax.
The people looking specifically at an FTT for college tuition don't like it for two reasons:
First, they think it would ultimately tax public employees and union members - not really the millionaires and billionaires (they actually can often trade internationally now) who could avoid the tax. State retirement funds could not.
The second reason is that states would use FTT money and simply raise tuition to obtain more of the dollars generated by the tax. Also, sending the money to public universities would add a layer of control over universities (in order to get the money), so there are political ramifications there.
If there was an FTT on individuals who earned more than $1,000,000 a year or on transactions for corporations that reduced dividends and bonuses - no one would object I suppose.
merrily
(45,251 posts)As far as I understand it, being a Democratic Socialist in the USA means working within capitalism and working within the Democratic Party.
http://www.dsausa.org/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12806844
On that thread, I especially liked replies 6, 10 and 49. Reply 10 was from a DUer who claimed to be a founder of the Democratic Socialists of America, Reply 6 was basically anti-label and reply 49 was just very thoughtful and informative.
I think referring to things like Social Security and Medicare as the kind of social programs and safety nets that Bernie supports is a great idea.
gobears10
(310 posts)his usage of the terms are unorthodox, and do not match the formal definitions of these terms.
he's mixing up democratic socialism and social democracy
merrily
(45,251 posts)and again http://www.dsausa.org/
I am campaigning for a candidate, not selling an ideology or a label. As I speak to people who have heard Sanders a Democratic Socialist, I am not going to say he is mistaken--nor am I sure he is as to the Democratic Socialists of America-- or go into a dissertation about terms. I am just going to tell them what kinds of programs he believes in.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)A:
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.
Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.
Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.
http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism
merrily
(45,251 posts)existing businesses from their current owners or control the means of all or substantially all of production.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)See how that matches what the DSA say? There's nothing in the OP about governments seizing businesses from their owners.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It is not merely a network of small collectives or coops.
First definition that comes up when you google.
so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.so·cial·ism
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism....
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
When it comes to a nation, I understand the "community as a whole" to be the government. And government typically does not acquire control of all or substantially all of the means of production of a nation without some form of seizure or condemnation.
However, I think you missed the actual point of Reply 16--the one to which you originally responded. It's not about quibbling about labels.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)don't believe in evolution. Textbooks in Texas are full of erasure of the most basic facts of history of oppression in the U.S.
Your average moderate voter, who has heard from birth that socialism and all of its iterations is responsible for the downfall of the American Way of Life, isn't going to hear this. They don't care about the differences.
merrily
(45,251 posts)However, there is much less resistance to voting for an outright socialist than I had assumed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/socialist-president-poll_n_7638400.html
TBF
(32,093 posts)but the millennials haven't grown up that way. I don't think they've grown up with that particular illusion. The wall came down in '89 - that's ancient history to our new voters.
But I think the key thing to emphasize is that Republicans want to take away social security - and those quotes should be showing on TV ads all over the country (not to mention Facebook and Twitter). Given our aging baby boomers (and the fact that voters who are older are more likely to vote) that should be enough to beat them no matter who the candidate is for either side.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)The challenge is GOTV in that age group. Hopefully all the candidates will be banging away about student debt and tuition too. I wish there had been this conversation when I was in college! I think other issues like Black Lives Matter and the attacks on PP will also bring in some new/young voters.
I totally agree about the social security issue. Even I'm getting to the age where I look at that letter every year and get nervous!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)They keep bypassing the numbers that say that over 90% will vote for a woman in all categories except the elderly, which peaks at around 85+%, I think? I'm on my phone, so I'm typing from memory.
For a socialist, it is something to build on for the future. I just don't seeing it happening before the first woman President, who also has high polling numbers in the Obama coalition.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)the multiple occasions/videos of Sanders self-ID'ing as a Socialist with nuance.
That isn't going to work. It's a fatal problem IMHO.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)is printing the Little Red Book in the basement of the White House. We have a very fearful and paranoid sector of the population, who are motivated voters.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Sanders has called himself a socialist, but his FDR-like policies are more in line with social democracy. As far as I know, he's not calling for nationalization of the means of production.
I think that's the more workable approach, although I'd entertain the idea of a national bank, or public ownership of our natural resources. Private industry certainly has shown a complete lack of responsibility for the common good in those areas.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/03/3239261/elizabeth-warren-post-office-financial-services/
Definitely not equivalent to nationalizing the banks, but rather a suggestion to help people without a lot of money access banking services without getting creamed with fees for not carrying enough of a balance.
I thought it sounded like a worthwhile idea.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)brooklynite
(94,729 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)board of directors?
Sancho
(9,070 posts)I grew up in SC and worked for one of Richard Riley's programs for a while (2 term Gov. of SC, and Clinton's Sec. of Ed.). Strom was reprehensible in many ways, but perfected his political skills over the years so that people supported him anyway. It was not "prisons" or even white radicals that made him popular. Strom was considered "PROGRESSIVE" at one time - which fits this OP. He was like Bernie in one way - a little radical for attention; polished script; hard to pin down on some issues, but quite opinionated on others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
gobears10
(310 posts)are still misinformed about all this, so I wanted to bump this topic.