Sanders assumes that adopting a socialist platform would be best for the party

[CajunBlazer]

I am not using the word "socialist" in a derogatory manner here. My purpose is simply to point out that socialism is not ideology that the vast majority of Americans voters are ready to embrace. A major political party cannot adopt far left or far right ideologies without expecting be shunted aside as irrelevant by the American electorate. Those on the far right and the far left may be the loudest and most passionate, but they still only represent relatively small slices of the electorate.

This country's economy has always has been and probably always will be based on free market principles. Trying to change that basic trait is exercise in futility. What progressives should concentrate on is equipping our government with the ability to curb the excesses of the free market which hurt people like you and me and especially those who are the most vulnerable among us and to make the free market work for all Americans. Far instance, the poor should not be left to fend for themselves and big banks should not be allowed to to take risks which could ruin our economy again.

One does not have to be a socialist to be a progressive. I try to live by the principle "moderation in all things". It is time for more moderate progressives to stand up and be counted. I am tired of attempts by "real progressives" to shame me because I am not progressive enough when it is they who have adopted untenable positions.

[hobbit709]

1. Starting with Social Security and going from there.

[awake]

2. It worked for FDR.

[CajunBlazer]

3. FDR wasn't a Socialist

And the sum of his programs cannot be described as socialism such as exists in some European countries today. Even those countries still operate of free market principles though they are more tightly restrained.

He was able to make major changes by introducing liberal government programs only because the country was in the middle of the worst financial crisis it had ever experienced and people were willing to try anything that would lessen the pain

[awake]

5. You are aware that in rebuilding Europe after wwII FDRs people

Required the adoption of "socialist" polices that FDR was unable to get passed here?

[CajunBlazer]

6. What weird version of history have you been reading

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. FDR was a Keynesian as have been all of his Democratic presidential successors.

Keynesianism =/= socialism.

[CajunBlazer]

10. Huh?????

I must be misreading your post. Otherwise I would have to ask what economics courses did you take?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Keynes was a capitalist.

Keynesian Theory and the New Deal


The crash of the stock market brought many hard times. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal was a way to fix these times. John Stuart Mill and John Maynard Keynes were two economists whose economic theories greatly influenced and helped Franklin D. Roosevelt devise a plan to rescue the United States from the Great Depression it had fallen into. John Stuart Mill was a strong believer of expanded government, which the New Deal provided. John Maynard Keynes believed in supply and demand, which the New Deal used to stabilize the economy. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal is the plan that brought the U.S. out of the Great Depression. It was sometimes thought to be an improvised plan, but was actually very thought out. Roosevelt was not afraid to involve the central government in addressing the economic problem. The basic plan was to stimulate the economy by creating jobs. First Roosevelt tried to help the economy with the National Recovery Administration.

http://www.novelguide.com/reportessay/history/american-history/keynesian-theory-and-new-deal

[CajunBlazer]

15. Okay, I did misread you post

Thanks for the explanation. I totally agree with your premise. Conditions did improve and Roosevelt's programs did create the foundations of government involvement in the economy which makes it much more stable today. However, I would differ on in one area.

While the new deal did improve the situation and certainly allowed the nation to survive the great depression, the process of recovery was greatly hastened by the demand created by WW II.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. That's the history...

[Scootaloo]

60. It's worth noting that Sanders is also a Keynesian capitalist

He's actually misusing the phrase "Democratic Socialism" - all his policies and proposals and advocacy points towards social democracy, rather than Democratic socialism

Yes, I know, it does get rather tedious, I suppose. I imagine there's the factor that calling yourself a "social democrat" makes you sound like a Democrat who goes to a lot of parties.

[fun n serious]

18. FDR was a segregationist

I don't want to go back and " make America great again."

[Scootaloo]

61. Of course. Anyone who talks positively about FDR wants a return to segregation

Just like anyone with positive views of JFK wants to nuke Cuba and invade southeast Asia.

[zenabby]

33. Wait a minute..

Even if that were true, was FDR a failed democratic nominee? No? He was the president. Well then. Let Bernie become the nominee or president, and then we'l talk.

[awake]

35. As I said it worked for FDR

And it can work again

[CajunBlazer]

43. You have paid no attention to any of the post above.

If you had, you wouldn't think that simply posting the same dribble again would cause people to believe it is true.

[awake]

44. I did read the other posts but I seem to be missing your point

Do you not think FDR was good? Or is it that you think he was not a Socialist?

[CajunBlazer]

49. Read your history and study economics

FDR was far from being a socialist - as was described in other posts - he was a capitalist and believed strongly the Keynesian Theory concepts of supply and demand. (John Maynard Keynes was the greatest economist of his time and wrote the definitive books describing how the free market works. )

FDR's most important contribution was creating government jobs (building infrastructure such as roads and bridges, improving national parks, etc.) which he paid for with government debt in order to began to pull the country slowly out of depression. In process he inserted government for the first time in the free market's supply and demand equations. Those with government jobs made money which they used to buy goods and services, which in turn created more jobs, which in inserted more money in the system, and so on.

So far from trying to implement socialism, most of FDR's efforts while he was president were based on knowledge of the free market system and how it works. Other endeavors such as the initiation of Social Security was but another effort to inject government money into the system. When we think of FDR we often think of him as a very liberal President. In truth he was a very practical man intent on pulling the country out of an economic pit any way he could.

Offered in an earlier post on this thread, the following article describes how FDR went about planning his job projects. Maybe you will read it his time, but I'm betting you won't. Maybe I'm wrong, but based on your posts I suspect that you are not open to anything that might contradict your preformed opinions. Here is the article just in case: http://www.novelguide.com/reportessay/history/american-history/keynesian-theory-and-new-deal

[awake]

52. Here are a few links for your enjoyment

Bernie Sanders Channels FDR To Explain What ‘Democratic Socialism’ Means To Him

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_564e281ee4b00b7997f9df76

BERNIE SANDERS’S NEW DEAL SOCIALISM
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/bernie-sanderss-new-deal-socialism

[CajunBlazer]

55. Just because a couple writers who are obviously ignorant of history...

... put words on paper, doesn't make Sanders another FDR. People who are ignorant of history don't get to rewrite history.

And if there are any similarities between the two men, Sanders would still not be qualified to tie FDR's shoe laces.

[awake]

56. Ok "what ever"

Have a nice day.

[CrowCityDem]

4. Socialism would create enormous pain during implementation.

I don't see how you can completely transform and upend entire facets of our economy without it causing massive amounts of pain and confusion. Just looking at health care, if we were to drive the insurance industry out of business, does anyone actually know what the economic impact would be of putting millions of people out of work, and destroying a multi-billion dollar industry would be? Of course we don't. Anyone who says nothing bad could happen is delusional.

Socialism is one of those things that sounds good in theory, and might work if you were starting from scratch, but making the transition from a healthy capitalistic economy is going to be a nightmare. It's one most people don't want to risk, since we don't know what the end result would even be.

[katsy]

7. People arent put out to pasture by adopting single payer.

The work is still done. The profit motive is eliminated.

Insurance companies will still be the facilitators of billing which is what they once were & still are.

On edit: we are socialist in practice. Education, epa, fda, libraries social security transportation dept etc.

Its how we want to balance the commons (governance) vs capitalism (economic system) that is important. It's not an either/or proposition that you put forth. If we were pure capitalists you would in essense have Somalia or a mad max nightmare.

[CajunBlazer]

9. Why would Insurance company stay in busines if the earned no profits?

Would the government nationalize private companies like they do is some South American banana republics so they could continue to send out bills? Wasn't the proposal to make health care "free" - meaning that everyone would pay for their health care through higher taxes? Why then would there be bills?

Is this the the kind of thinking that socialist do?

[katsy]

21. No need for emotional outcry

Insurance companies ALWAYS existed to facilitate medical billing. Therefore bcbs will exist as it always did before pay to play health insurance. Google is your friend. Dud u think medical insurance is a new perk or something? What do you think medicare is? If current billing jobs can be offshored they will be regardless of whether we have single payer or not.

Healthcare should be paid for thru taxes its just as important as education & social security & medicare. We arent talking about a need for a 60" teevee here.

Modern industrialized countries have made it work and so can we. Full stop.

[CrowCityDem]

23. But in true single payer, the hospitals can send bills directly to gov't...

... the only payer, so there wouldn't be any need for an insurance industry to facilitate billing. And even if there was, it would be microscopic in comparison to where it is now.

[katsy]

26. Google the history of healthcare in america

Or here:

https://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/yourhealthdollar.org_blue-cross-history-compilation.pdf

And stop thinking that "jobs" will disappear because of single payer. Jobs can disappear in free markets anytime for any reason. Jobs will be lost to automation like crazy in the coming years anyway! In every sector! And are you saying that jobs trump health?

Jobs will continue to be automated. Humanity needs to rethink how we sustain our communities.

[CrowCityDem]

27. Our economic health is not an insignificant concern.

And the fact remains that if we have a true single payer system, there would not be any need or use for insurance companies. In Bernie's plan, everything under the sun is paid for directly by the government. There isn't anything for the insurance companies to do. Yes, I think it's a big deal that an entire industry would be shut down.

Similarly, I have the same concern over the plans to break up the banks. While they are too big, granted, I'd like to hear what the economic impact of breaking them up would be before signing onto the idea. I don't want to walk into a Brexit type situation if it's avoidable.

[katsy]

31. I disagree.

Single payer will not cause significant job loss. The benefits outweigh the risks.

And if you are concerned of economic health... Then your time is better spent worrying about automation.

I assume you realize that even under this pay for play health insurance system, capitalists will automate and eliminate as many jobs as thry can, correct? So its a BS argument designed to generate fear of medicare for all. Insurance companies will carry on as trusts & coops as they always have. Or be folded into the medicare system. Either way, it will be done. The costs of healthcare need to be managed and the profit aspect must be eliminated.

What happens when automation improves and fewer people are working? They will never be able to afford health ins anyway! And taxpayers wont be able to fund that many unemployed!

It's going to happen unless 1: people stop procreating & the population is drastically reduced, or 2: we start euthanizing feeders.

I can't help you understand what you aren't willing to research & comprehend on your own. Government pays for nothing. Taxpayers pool their money in an efficient manner to pay for common causes like roads bridges MEDICARE education libraries military etc etc etc

Government has the power to negotiate better deals for it's society than we can individually and thats to everyones advantage. I live on a private road in a private development and i can attest to that fact personally by the huge cost of just maintaing our roads privately! Its crazy!

As for banks... Did you enjoy the show in the financial ALMOST collapse in 2008? Taxpayers bailed them out. I personally dont give a shit about size as long as these fuckers dont get a dime from taxpayers and are regulated well so they dont rip off consumers. Stop conflating brexit with banks. If i understand you correctly... You dont care if these fuckers rip off the public & our treasury so long as we dont lose jobs? Really? So maybe taxpayers should support the mafia so long as the mafia employs enough thugs? LOLOL think.

You need to research your concerns instead of throwing out solutions to who knows what problem on a discussion board.

[CrowCityDem]

34. If single payer won't create job losses...

... doesn't that undercut the argument that the system is bloated and inefficient? It seems obvious to me that if you've been saying a single payer can do everything cheaper and more effectively, you should be able to significantly shrink the footprint.

If one payer controlling everything needs as many people to administer the program as the system we have now, there doesn't seem to be an administrative need for change.

It's a faulty argument.

[katsy]

38. That's not at all what i have said.

You did not read the link i gave to you. I stated multiple times job losses occur whether or not you have medicare for all. The jobs will not disappear because of single payer... They disappear because of market efficiencies or lower costs offshore.

No administrative need for change? Bcbs just requested a 30% hike in premiums for this year in my state. It seems you are stuck in a "job loss" bubble while millions of people are at risk of not being able to afford health insurance. What happens if people cant afford insurance & rather pay a fine than pay a 30% hike? Wont people lose insurance jobs if, for example, 1m people drop their insurance? 2m? Consumers will inevitably be priced out of the healthcare market with these rate hikes but you arent concerned with the job losses from that. Why not? Maybe all this "concern" is misplaced.

Conversation is over.

[CajunBlazer]

48. Your arguements inaccurate, illogical and, in the final analysis, moot

I scanned your link and article which strangely covers the history of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association which is now one of the biggest private health insurance groups in the country. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama is a member to that association.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama is the largest, most dominate insurer in my home state covering 3 million of the state's 4.9 million people. It is a 501(c)(3) company, meaning it is essentially not for profit. Because it is so dominate in the state, it is able to negotiate the very low payments schedules with the state's doctors, hospitals and other medical providers and it passes those savings on to its customers. I personally have Blue Cross insurance and the company offers the most Obamacare plans. Every doctor and medical facility in this state accepts Blue Cross insurance; to not do so would mean financial ruin. Quite a few doctors no longer accept Medicare, but they all accept Blue Cross.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama employs nearly 4,000 people, which includes almost 3,000 people at its corporate headquarters in Birmingham. They only deal in health insurance. Under a single payer system, Blue Cross would be out of business and its 4,000 employees would no longer have jobs. Now some of the jobs might migrate to Washington, but those jobs would be lost in the State of Alabama and the City of Birmingham. Blue Cross is one of the biggest employers in the state and the city so that loss would mean economic pain and personal tragedy.

Want proof, I selected one of the socialist countries in Europe at random and looked up how its health care system works. In Norway, this is how their system is administered. All hospitals in the country are funded each year by the national budget. Every person under the age of 16 and all pregnancy care is covered completely. Those over the age of 16 are subject to a yearly deductible of about $245 American dollars. Those who require physiotherapy, special forms of dental care and rehabilitation are also required to pay another $314 co-pay a year on top of the regular copay. So hospital care is provided by the government, but everyone even those under 16, have to pay for the doctors time, the instruments used, even bandages while being treated in a hospital. Visits to doctors and specialists incur charges. Citizens must also pay for radiology and laboratory tests.

Norway doesn't produce many drugs so the government must purchase drugs from foreign drug companies over which they have little control. I suppose they negotiates as best they can, but many cases they are paying at or near regular market prices. People who want drug coverage must pay a separate co-pay.

Therefore the hospitals in Norway essentially work for the government - nothing concerning hospital care goes through insurance companies. And you can bet that the government dictates what level of care is provided for various medical conditions and, to some extent, how that care is administered. That is how they keep costs down.

However, this entire discussion is moot. Hillary found that out when she was in charge of trying to install a single payer system during her husband's first term. This was evident once again when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House and the best compromise they could come up with was Obamacare and that was close vote. Politics is the art of the possible. Right now as we are having this discussion, a single payer system is impossible.

Trying to implement a singer payer system in the United States right now is not achievable by any means. Including a single payer system as a plank in the Democratic platform would be a lie because the nominee is only going to put her time and effort into incremental improvements which actually have a chance of becoming reality. If you are not satisfied with incremental improvements in our health care system, then you are shit out of luck because that is the most you can hope for for the time being.

[katsy]

58. And you keep moving the goalposts.

We were talking about the loss of jobs should we go medicare for all.

Loss of jobs will happen regardless of single payer or aca. Efficiency or off shoring will take care of that.

Incremental steps to medicare for all is ok by me. But you tell me how long before the aca goes belly up because of 30% +/- annual hikes in premium? Do you think that is sustainable? When the premium hikes exceed the penalty for being uninsured... people will go without. Your insured base will shrink & then watch the job losses in the industry.

What happens when, not if, automation makes fiscal sense and there are less jobs? How will people afford insurance? Taxpayer subsidized? How if your taxpayer base is making less money? Wages are stagnant. Health ins premiums are skyrocketing & you're worried about jobs in the industry? Seems to me it's a clusterfuck either way.

Single payer is going to happen. Or we let people die without. This slow bleed, these 30% annual hikes are going to kill the industry anyway.

Idk why you brought up norway. I think we'll develop our own model and hopefully it utilizes the best of all useful working models.

[CajunBlazer]

64. Let's cut to the chase

1) People like the 4,000 employees of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama would lose their jobs - and in a relatively poor state like Alabama it wouldn't help if the majority of any new jobs created popped up somewhere else in a government office.

2) And most importantly, it isn't going to happen in the next 8 years and wouldn't if by some miracle Sanders were to be President during that time period. Even most Congressional Democrats wouldn't vote for a single payer system.

A party platform announces to the world - "this is what our candidate proposes to get done if he/she wins the Presidency". I will guarantee you that Hillary Clinton knows that she will be unable to institute a single payer health system during her first term so why lie to her countrymen and tell them that she is going to try to do so. That would be deeply disingenuous.

Now if Bernie Sanders wants to make that part of his platform when he runs for reelection, fine, but he should not be trying to dictate what platform Hillary Clinton is going to run on.

[Ken Burch]

75. A fair amount of those Blue Cross Blue Shield people would likely be hired to help run single-payer

That would be one of the natural pools of talent to draw from.

[CajunBlazer]

76. Right, the federal government is going to set up 3,000 person office in Birmingham

to administer health care in the state. Yea, that'll happen.

And most residents of Birmingham would go jobless rather than moving to DC.

[eridani]

87. Please cut the crap. Hillarycare was never single payer

Otherwise, why would she have needed to hang out with insurance execs in Wyoming to work out the details. Hey sick people!d Just fuck off and die so the rest us can save money!

Insurance companies are in the business of mass murder for profit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. We have a mixed economy...

I want to use the profits capitalism creates to ameliorate social ills.

But a healthy economy can not survive in the absence of incentives and disincentives.

[CrowCityDem]

22. That doesn't sound like a single payer system, and it's not the one we've been hearing about.

[forjusticethunders]

29. The good news is you don't have to.

Last edited Sat Jul 2, 2016, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

For example, a low cost (low premium or no premium/limited copay) public option like Hillary is pushing for would be a huge step towards a socialized system. You could then slowly but steadily make the health insurance corps into utilities (they could even be allowed nominal profits; the ACA allows 20%, we could push it to 10% or lower over years) like they are in Denmark. The end result is a system that could more or less be described as "just as socialist" as in Europe.

The main problem with healthcare though is that costs have been allowed to balloon because insurance companies have run completely amok for decades by passing costs onto the consumer instead of trying to keep them down. If only Ted hasn't been a dipshit in the 80s. People, that's what purity politics gets you. We could have had something like the ACA in 1972 or so but it wasn't good enough for Ted Kennedy. Honestly Ted has a lot to answer for when it comes to America's current state. Had we had an ACA like program in 1972 (or in 1992, had Hillary accepted an essentially ACA-like program developed by Heritage) transitioning into a fully socialist healthcare system in 2008 or 2016 would have been a lot easier, not least because we'd have at least 16 or at most 36 years more years to start bending the cost curve.

Recusion proposed implementing a basic income by making the entire adult population 1.5% shareholders in all joint-stock corporations and paying it via the dividends (even going so far as to eliminate corporate taxes entirely as a balance). I added on a more radical proposal that on top of that, making the employees of all such companies have a collective ownership share in the business (50.5% to be precise), with a standardized 13 member board so that the employees and investors have 6 board members, with a representative of the public ownership stake as the tiebreaker. That wouldn't be *easy* to implement, but it would give us worker ownership of the means of production (at least major production) without upending the entire system.

The problem with many Lefties is that they don't think outside the box because they're not familiar with solutions outside raw socialist theory. And the issue is that to progress beyond capitalism, you have to have a nuanced, 21st century, flexible view of it to know what to change and how. However, that doesn't mean we're stuck with capitalism either just because previous attempts at changing it haven't worked out well.

[CrowCityDem]

30. Issues are complicated? Shh... don't tell the 'progressives'. Lol.

[katsy]

32. Excellent nt

[Ken Burch]

72. So did capitalism...and so does it still.

The status quo has never been painless or injustice-free.

[NorthCarolina]

13. I'm older, but his platform ideas are pretty much in sync with the Democratic Party I grew up with.

Far from what I would call "socialism". Populism maybe, but that is what the Democrats were about, once upon a time.

[CajunBlazer]

16. Name one other Democratic Presidential candidate who proposed a socialist agenda

Even McGovern didn't go as far as Sanders and he won only one state and Washington DC. You must have grown up in a different party than I did.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Sanders did not propose anything that has not been either practiced or proposed in the past.

It's silly to carry on as if he did.

[CajunBlazer]

50. Not in this country

and just because it is practiced elsewhere where people have distinctly different outlooks, doesn't by any means mean they can work here.

[Trenzalore]

14. Bernie's political capital is decreasing daily

He'd have more influence if he would have surrendered and offered a full voice endorsement a week after the primary closed.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Just so you know, all that rhetoric about being a 'moderate' while others have untenable positions

was heavily employed by the 'moderates' who were opposed to marriage equality entirely. They continued to employ that sort of language after they were forced to adapt by opposing marriage equality in favor 'civil unions' because that was so super pragmatic and moderate and not untenable. Eventually that same crowd stopped saying 'We can't support marriage equality or we will lose the election' started saying 'We have to support marriage equality or we will lose the election'.

So basically all that sort of 'I'm a moderate and you are unrealistic' language always reminds me of those good times so recently in our past. I don't think 'Gee, I wish I was more pragmatic' I think 'Gee, I've heard those excuses before out of people whose intentions were not in my favor'.

[CajunBlazer]

51. I really don't care what it reminds you of

Quit trying to equate the implementation of social justice and and your desire to implement socialist programs. The former is not dependent in any way on the latter. I could say that your arguments remind me of people trying to implement communist programs, but I won't because that would be grossly unfair as well.

[AgingAmerican]

19. Ignorant circular firing squad OP

[cosmicone]

25. Anyone who has seen other such experiments

would know of a disaster....

Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Angola to name a few .... all are moving towards capitalist systems. Capitalism leaves a few poor behind but the other way makes everyone poor -- except the party bosses, juntas and politburos.

[forjusticethunders]

47. It depends if you think the exploitation of marginalized people you see in capitalism...

is a bug or a feature.

[OnDoutside]

28. The one thing I completely agree with Sanders on, is the failure of the Democratic Party to get out

the vote in the last number of Midterms, the failure to take the Republicans on in all electable positions, and the failure to take a much harder line on Republican voter suppression efforts. If there is one lesson to have take from President Obama's years is that it is all very well getting your guy/gal into the White House but it doesn't end there. The Republicans have had the power and polarisation to block every move a Democratic President can wish to make. The campaign doesn't end on Jan 20, 2017.

On Socialists, I fully agree that one does not have to be a socialist to be a progressive, and it is point I've tried to bring up here over the last number of weeks i.e. Are Socialists hiding behind the term "Progressive" because the word "Socialist" is so tainted ? True hardline Socialists will never change, consequently when someone like yourself isn't "progressive" enough, you draw their anger.

[orwell]

36. The platform is a largely symbolic statement...

...that is non-binding on the party.

I don't understand all the hand wringing about it.

[Adrahil]

37. Sanders lost

More people supported his opponent and her agenda. Actual Democrats by a very large margin.

[timmymoff]

39. Adopting a republican platform would be better?

[MaggieD]

41. You appear to have fallen victim to the "all or nothing" fallacy

Which is odd given that the OP is pretty clear on the concept of moderation in all things.

By definition, you seem to have fallen victim to the all or nothing fallacy defined as:

"When it is suggested or implied that one must believe all or nothing of a particular set of beliefs."

[timmymoff]

65. I see some have fell victim to fallacies but not all or nothing

More like nothing means all

[CajunBlazer]

67. You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong

No, wait...... I would never say that for fear of being mistaken for ideologically pure far left zealot.

[MaggieD]

40. Sanders would be totally incorrect about that

We are a free market economy. The American people want a basic social safety net, but the vast majority want the opportunity to succeed. They do NOT want an "opportunity" for the government to take care of them for their whole lives. And they especially do not want to pay the taxes that would be associated with a socialist style government and economy.

If the Democrat party were to adopt socialism as a feature of the party we'd be in a permanent minority status in congress, on the USSC, and we would never win another presidential election.

Sanders would like to force us into a socialist government and economy, but thankfully the majority of the Dem party said no thank you to Bernie.

[David__77]

42. What policy positions exemplify this socialism?

This discussion strikes me as highly conceptual. I want to understand what policies you think constitute socialism that Sanders' are or might be proposing for incorporation in the platform.

[PowerToThePeople]

45. Socialism (or similar) is the only path that

will not lead the human race and world ecosystem to total destruction.

[CajunBlazer]

68. Really, prove it.

[G_j]

46. Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/

Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist

Scandinavia is, by one measure, a freer market than the United States.



Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist
Scandinavia is, by one measure, a freer market than the United States.


U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and his wife board their campaign plane in Minneapolis, Minnesota.Brian Snyder / Reuters
-/-/

Whether you like it or not, socialism is back in fashion and it is gaining support among America’s youth. A recent YouGov survey found that 43 percent of respondents under the age of 30 had a favorable view of socialism. Only 32 percent had a favorable view of capitalism.

Another recent survey, this one by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, found in the words of U.S. News’s Ken Walsh that “[58] percent of young people choose socialism over capitalism [which was chosen by 33 percent of young people] ... as the most compassionate system. Sixty-six percent say corporate America ‘embodies everything that is wrong with America,’ compared with 34 percent who say corporate America embodies what's right with America. A plurality of 28 percent say the most pressing issue facing the country is income inequality—one of [Senator Bernie] Sanders’ top themes.”

As someone who grew up under socialism and is still, barely, in his 30s, I hope to relate a few ideas to the young people who are “feeling the Bern.” First, Sanders is not a socialist, but a social democrat. Second, the United States does not have a strictly capitalist economy, but a mixed one. As such, it combines a high level of private ownership of capital and the means of production with relatively onerous regulation and taxation. Third, to the extent that what anti-capitalist Sanders supporters really want is a Scandinavian-style social democracy, with its high level of wealth redistribution and income equality, they should consider that even some of the most socially democratic countries on earth are, in one crucial way, more capitalist than the United States.

Let us start at the well of the socialist renewal, the Vermont senator. Sanders, as everyone knows, calls himself a “democratic socialist.” The word “democratic” is fundamental here, because historically socialism has not, typically, come about as a result of free and fair elections. In most socialist countries, like the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic where your humble author was born, socialism was imposed at the point of a gun. Sanders, therefore, is wise to distance himself from the socialists of yesteryear and insist that socialism in America should be chosen, freely and fairly, by the electorate.

..more..

[CajunBlazer]

53. The author of your article is flat wrong

First of all, Bernie is a socialist or he has been lying; he refers to himself as a democratic socialist constantly.

Second, just a because a bunch of ignorant kids think socialism is more compassionate than capitalism doesn't mean they would chose to live under a socialist system and doesn't mean we don't live under a capitalist, free market system with some government controls. And even the poll sited indicates that only, " 28 percent (of the young people polled) said the most pressing issue facing the country is income inequality". And last time I checked, young people are a minority in this country.

As kids get out of school and start baring adult responsibilities they grow more realistic and their political stances mature. I grew up in the '60's. For the most part the free living, drug smoking, war hating, free sex loving hippies that I knew have matured into respectable grandfathers and grandmothers with far more moderate political views. When you're young and have no money, government freebees are very attractive.

[G_j]

59. Oy..I grew up in the the sixties also

And could not disagree more. One thing you have demonstrated though is the tendency for some older folks to lecture the young like they are idiots.

[CajunBlazer]

62. Obviously you knew a bunch of Hippies who never grew up

There some of the hippies who never changed, but they are the exceptions. There are also hippie who went the opposite direction and morphed into yuppies - concentrating on physical processions, but I think they are the exceptions as well.

Here is an interesting article on "What happened to the hippies?" The author relates his experience with the hippie culture and that of his sibling. http://livingstingy.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-ever-happened-to-hippies.html Evidently the the downfall of hippie communes was the same human weakness that prevents total socialism from being a viable solution to our problems.

"The hippie communes quickly fell apart, as people living together "in peace and harmony" quickly realized that all those messy materialism things would still come to bear, even in a hippie commune. Some folks ended up doing all the work, or contributing all the money, and pretty quickly, they realized they were getting a raw deal, and left."

If you are interested in why people generally get more conservative (or as I would rather say "get more moderate&quot with age, this is an enlightening article in Physiology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201410/why-are-older-people-more-conservative

[B Calm]

54. There's that word again, socialist. LOL

[CajunBlazer]

63. Doesn't Sanders describe himself as a Democratic Socialist

I'll bet he would have no problem describing his proposal as socialist, not that there is anything wrong with that.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

57. the vast majority of Americans voters - lol

they have given us this...

Climate change and the sixth global mass-extinction event is happening now
and worse coming soon

"moderation in all things" - this is the saving course of action - and it is not even hinted at by more than a few

[CajunBlazer]

69. You sound just like Trump with a slightly different message

I'm surprised you didn't open with "Make America Great Again!" I am tired of the negative messaging.

The American gave us 8 years of President Obama and he has done more to try to stop and reverse climate change, against fierce Republican opposition, than any person in history.

Hillary will do the same. Her opponent on the other hand says that climate change isn't real, or on a different day says that it might real but is not caused by humans.

I'd say you have a wide choice on the topic.

[Ken Burch]

66. Well yeah, candidates for president do tend to think they might actually have some valid ideas.

And to believe the party whose nomination they sought should consider adopting some of those ideas.

If you want to be a non-socialist progressive, or try to, that's your call.

But spare us the condescending "now let me tell you children how things are in the real world" tone of voice. You're not entitled to it. Far too many people said "we agree with Bernie, but we're voting for HRC because we think she's electable" to assume Bernie's actual ideas lost.

The Democratic Party may not be socialist, but we don't have to make a big pompous show out of being "anti-socialist" in order to win. We simply needs to tap into the deep-seated feelings of anger most Americans have about the status quo, and to make it clear that we are willing to work for major changes in the structures we live under.

Tinkering around the edges isn't going to cut it.

[CajunBlazer]

70. I don't think that the greatest danger to the Democratic Party is the GOP

And I don't think that the greatest danger to the GOP is the the Democratic Party. The greatest danger to both parties comes from within their own ranks, or from the allied independents who consider themselves too pure ideologically to be Demarcates or Republicans.

It is the far left and far right zealots who are determined to drag the major parties to their extremist positions regardless of the costs who most endanger their parties and the American political system. The more radicalized the major parties become, the less effective they will be in governing. We have already seen the stifling gridlock in Washington. The further to the major parties drift to the left and to the right, the less chance there will be that they can cooperate to solve our nation's most pressing problems.

More moderate Democrats don't tend to be loud and passionate, but it is time that we raise our voices and be counted or we will be overrun by our more passionate, less numerous associates.

[Ken Burch]

71. "overrun"? So anytime you don't get your way, it's an invasion of your party from without?

The truth is, a lot of people inside the Democratic Party want it to be further left than it currently is...to stand up to corporate power, to protect ordinary people from the unrelenting loss of ground we've experienced since 1981, to avoid global environmental castatrophe, and to move beyond war as a means of influencing the world.

It's not illegitimate to want any of those things, nor is it alien to the Democratic Party to want them.

[CajunBlazer]

73. No, I think it is legitimate for your to want those things,

I just don't think that it is legitimate for you to ruin the Democratic Party trying to get them.

[Ken Burch]

74. We didn't ruin it. If anything, we've made it better.

The platform is much stronger and much more likely to win votes in the fall than if Bernie hadn't run.

And a lot of people out there in the country, a significantly growing number, want something like social democracy. Most of them are Democrats.

It's not as though the party belongs exclusively to you and people who agree with you.

[CajunBlazer]

78. Says someone who still trying to drag the party to his/her position

....after a large majority of registered democrats voted against your candidate.

[Ken Burch]

79. The candidate, not his views.

The polls consistently show clear majority support for Bernie's proposals.

None of which would be bad for the country, btw.

[CajunBlazer]

80. You mean the majority of young people who were attracted by government freebees.

Populists like Trump and Sanders always draw support early on until people figure out that there is on such thing as a free lunch.

[Ken Burch]

81. Those are basic human rights, the building blocks of a life, not "government freebies".

There's no good reason in a decent society for university education and healthcare to be treated as luxuries reserved for those who can afford them out of pocket.

The things Bernie and his supporters fought for are to the good of the vast majority of the American people...people of all colors, people of all genders, people of all ages and creeds.

We need to have a society, for example, where a person on Social Security could go back to college and get all the additional education she or he or they(the new trans pronoun)would like. Or that people can keep studying part-time as they work a full-time job an raise kids if they want.

And that no one ever again goes bankrupt due to medical debt.

Nobody is freed by having to struggle to keep their heads above water every single day.

[applegrove]

77. I would call that being a liberal.

[John Poet]

82. So which part or parts of Bernie's platform

do you consider to be 'socialist' ?

[CajunBlazer]

83. Defeated candidates don't have platforms

Candidates run on platforms and he is no longer a candidate.

In addition, defeated candidates don't get to dictate the platforms of candidates still the running.

(I really thought that you would be a better sparring pardner John.)

[John Poet]

84. If you don't want to answer my question, just say so.

You don't need to come up with new insulting shit just to dodge the question.

[CajunBlazer]

85. What makes you think I should feel obligated to answer your question?

Good night John.

[cyberswede]

86. Avoiding answering a simple question is hardly "sparring"