John Hickenlooper on Socialism...

[brooklynite]

Link to tweet

[msongs]

1. but what about socialist welfare price supports and subsidies for the oil and gas industry nt

[Turin_C3PO]

2. Here's the thing:

None of our candidates are socialists. Bernie stupidly calls himself one but even he is, basically, for a capitalistic, Nordic-style, welfare state.

[Blue_true]

10. No.

Senator Sanders is not for a capitalistic, Notdic style welfare state. He has said that he is for government controlling the means of production. Senator Warren and Senator Harris are for a capitalistic Nordic style social welfare system.

[Turin_C3PO]

11. Did he really say that?

If he did indeed say that the government should own the means of production, then, yes, he’s a socialist. I honestly didn’t know he believed that.

[Blue_true]

12. He has recently spoken about taking over industries.

Warren and Harris wants them better regulated and fairly taxed.

Senator Sanders is a democratic socialist and he has spoken about that. The philosophy definitely is not Social Democracy that is practiced in Nordic countries, the two are not remotely close. Democratic Socialism is one step removed from socialism. Social Democracy is capitalism modified to make the benefits gained from gaining wealth more evenly shared across all of society so that no one is left behind.

[Celerity]

17. he did not say that, the other poster is factually wrong (and I am NOT a Bernie fan)

Bernie is not a 'real' socialist, has not been for decades, he is a social democrat who foolishly tries to redefine socialism into something it is not. Why he does this, I have no clue. It is stupid and hurts any chances for bog standard social democratic programmes being passed, including many that a majority of 'regular' (and even a majority of the nation, in some cases) Democrats support.


What socialism is — according to Bernie Sanders

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/what-is-socialism-bernie-sanders

Bernie Sanders explains what socialism is

Luckily for us, Senator Sanders explained his political philosophy in a speech he delivered at Georgetown University in 2015. (The entire speech can be viewed here.)

He begins by referring to the New Deal of President Franklin Roosevelt and pointing out the good that it did for a country in the depths of the Great Depression:

"He saw one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished. And he acted. Against the ferocious opposition of the ruling class of his day, people he called economic royalists, Roosevelt implemented a series of programs that put millions of people back to work, took them out of poverty and restored their faith in government. He redefined the relationship of the federal government to the people of our country. He combated cynicism, fear and despair. He reinvigorated democracy. He transformed the country. . . . And, by the way, almost everything he proposed was called 'socialist.'"

The senator then muses on several issues facing the United States, income inequality, unemployment, high rates of childhood poverty, the high cost of medical care, and a declining faith in our political system, among others, and decides that the concentration of wealth and power is both the root cause of them and the key reason why we have failed to solve them. His solution, of course, is "socialism." It is then that he gives us his conception of what that is:

"Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy. Democratic socialism means that we must reform a political system in America today which is not only grossly unfair but, in many respects, corrupt."

He goes a bit into the particulars of policy and explained that his conception of socialism would require — this is what it would look like — universal health care, total employment, free college education, more public spending, a living wage, environmental regulations, and a robust democratic culture to come into existence. He flatly denied any interest in nationalization, telling the audience:

"So the next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, remember this: I don't believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal."
The contents of this speech were very similar to other statements he has made about socialism across his entire political career. The entire speech could have been summed up neatly in a quote he gave to the Associated Press back in 1997:

"To me, socialism doesn't mean state ownership of everything, by any means, it means creating a nation, and a world, in which all human beings have a decent standard of living."

Wait a moment, praise for the New Deal? No interest in nationalization? That definition sounds a lot like capitalism!

You might have noticed that this program focuses on making capitalism work better and not replacing it with an entirely new system based on social ownership. This has made his definition of socialism a matter of contention.

While "socialism" is a system based around replacing private ownership of the means of production with social ownership, which generally means having the workers own and operate them instead — either through cooperatives or the state — Bernie hasn't shown much of an interest in using the government to promote this change.

Bernie's explanation of "socialism" is, in fact, closer to what political philosophers refer to as "social democracy." This is a capitalist system, since the means of production are still privately owned, where the state heavily regulates the economy and has an active welfare system in place to correct for the worst problems inherent to capitalism like inequality, cyclic instability, or the profit motive encouraging people to do things against the public interest.

snip

[Blue_true]

24. If one looks at Senator Warren's proposals for solving the problems your post listed,

she has been clear that it will be done under a regulated, fairly taxed capitalistic system. Senator Sanders talks about solving the same problems, but in every instance, his basic solution is government putting it's foot on the neck of business and mandating solutions.

I stand by what I wrote. That is how I perceive what Bernie is saying. We should not let capitalists continue to exclusively define the landscape on which we live, but history has shown that too heavy a hand by government yields equally bad results to letting business run wild.

The New Deal, btw, was a capitalistic solution to a large problem of that era. FDR took some of the tools that had been used in previous depressions and added some new ideas to them. He really DID NOT go off the rails and I think the people that are looking back nostalgically at that era are somewhat ignorant to what happened. FDR for example avoided tackling the second or even third class status of tens of millions of Americans, nor did he address their economic concerns in a direct fashion.

[Celerity]

25. The Nordic nations have struck about as good a balance as can be had.

Their private sectors are robust and yet heavily regulated. Their workers are more productive per hour worked than ours, and they have far higher levels of BOTH wealth equality and upward social mobility. The only nation in the entire OECD with worse upward social mobility than the US is the UK. Sanders would be squarely in the centre of the Swedish or Danish Social Democrats or the Norwegian Labour Party. The actual Socialist parties such as Rødt in Norway, Enhedslisten in Denmark or Vänsterpartiet in Sweden would never accept him, as he is far to the right of their ideology.

[Blue_true]

26. You keep conflating what Senator Sanders is proposing with Social Democracy.

In Social Democracy, regulated capitalism is a linchpin of the system, along with fair taxation of increases in wealth (profits, dividends).

What Senator Sanders is proposing in something other than that. Take his plan for medical coverage. In his system, everyone would be in one plan, whether they want to or not. That is government mandating and it has historically not worked. Senator Warren by comparison seem to be proposing a healthcare plan where we make a coverage attractive to people and then migrate more and more people into it, people and companies that want to stay in the private plans can. My feeling in that as Senator Warren's method proves itself, companies will want to fold their healthcare needs into it and pay a premium for the opportunity to join the plan, even with that premium their costs will be lower and their employees would have higher quality coverage.

Another area where Senator Sanders raises alarms is energy. I don't know what his plan is because he has repeatedly failed to provide any details. But if one looks at the basics of what he is saying, he would put some forms of energy on a rapid shutdown plan. Rapid shutdown of some energy use is desirable, but how that is done determines whether the overall plan will succeed or not. As pointed out, Senator Sanders provides NO guidance on what to expect with his presidency, and that causes legitimate concern.

What I see of Senator Sanders is a person who throws out visions of broad mandates without defining the methods for achieving them. Every time I have witnessed that in my lifetime, the governance that people who talked up the mandates was a disaster or outright totalitarian, like Daniel Ortega turned out to be once he had power, or Trump is being now.

[Celerity]

27. you are the one incorrectly conflating, not I. You have an incorrect vision of what social democracy

actually is. In the Nordic nations, they have healthcare that is almost totally government run.

you said

Take his plan for medical coverage. In his system, everyone would be in one plan, whether they want to or not. That is government mandating and it has historically not worked.

It is exactly what you claim it is NOT.

Government run, mandated universal heath IS the way it is run in the Nordics. It also is working out far better than what the US model has yielded, especially over the last 2 or 3 decades, at most all levels, and especially in terms of the economic costs and the overall quality of care provided.

Private insurance in the Nordics is very rare, and was only let in (here I will use Sweden as an example) when the Moderates (aka the centre right Conservative Party, their former name) allied with some of the neoliberal factions in the smaller parties to allow it a small slice of the pie back in the noughties. It (private insurance) is mostly used for elective operations or to get expedited service, and usually is offered as a perk through an employer. It plays a very small (usually none) role in most peoples' lives.

Health care is run though the kommuner (counties) via an mandate from the Riksdag (the national parliament). I went to university and lived there for years, I know the system like the back of my hand. The max per year a person has to spend for ALL medical care AND pharmaceuticals is 3400kr (1200kr for medical visits 2200kr for drugs). 3400kr is around 360 US dollars at current FOREX rates. That breaks down to around 30 USD per month max.

Finally,

Sanders does not advocate for state ownership of the means of production, as I have shown conclusively. It is disingenuous at best to falsely claim he does, and even more so to further try and say that social democracy precludes a completely (or nearly so) public run health care schema when that is actually one of its fundamental underpinnings in most all social democratic-run nations.

I am not here to defend Sanders overall. I think he is an undetectable candidate in this nation, for a multiplicity of reasons, including the way it is currently politically constituted. I think Warren is vastly superior. That said, I will always challenge the falsehoods that you are positing. It is a very unfruitful way to critique Sanders.

[Blue_true]

28. Nordic healthcare is run locally or by regional bodies.

It is not the federal level plan that Bernie is pushing. Also, there is and always has been private insurance in the Nordics, though it is mostly used for specialized medical services, not for daily health needs.

The Nordic system works because everyone associated with it has bought into it, private companies, workers, students. You are standing in the present looking back on a system that was implemented decades ago and has undergone some major tweaks. The system slowly choked out private insurance for basic and hospital care because people saw that it worked better for them. The best way for us to get there is via the route proposed by Senator Warren and others, not Senator Sanders. The solution is to make the ACA better, the federal government sets national standards but let local organizations tax and deliver services. Yes, we will initially have a Georgia, Alabama, Ohio setting draconian policy, but if local people get their asses in a wrench, they will eventually vote the assholes out, if they don't they get what they want. The Nordic health care system did not become what it is overnight, it resulted from decades of tweaks and observation of the results of the tweaks, something Senator Sanders has not shown patience for (lukewarm reception to Hillary's attempt at healthcare reform in the 90s, yes he grudgingly supported it, but only because the radical change he wanted had no chance of passing).

[Celerity]

29. Nordic healthcare is run locally or by regional bodies.

Thank you for basically repeating what I just said to you back to me, lolol.

Also, as I have already stated, whilst administered at kommun level, it is 100% set (in terms of overarching policies and legal mandates) at the Riksdag level (ie national).

Healthcare was hardly the main thrust of all this. It was my correcting you when you tried to incorrectly label Sanders as a socialist who wants currently to do away with capitalism and for the government to take over the means of production (he has NOT held these positions for decades). You also says he does want a Nordic Model system when that is what he indeed wants.

you said it here



Those are falsehoods. I have shown that, I am done here, other than to leave you with other links (of all types of ideological bent) that conclusively back me up and show you to wrong. BTW, Warren is my 2nd choice, maybe 3rd, after Pete and maybe after Harris.




No Bernie

https://cosmonaut.blog/2019/02/20/no-bernie/

Most of the pieces encouraging a DSA endorsement of Bernie Sanders in 2020 are quick to admit that his politics are not socialist politics. We want to abolish capitalism, to do that we’ll need a revolution, and clearly Bernie doesn’t support either of those things. Many of his policy positions are far better than those which any other liberal politician has on offer, but at the root of things Bernie’s policies are about getting friendlier managers in charge of capitalism, not abolishing the system itself.

Bernie Sanders Is No Socialist
Social democracy would have been an easier label to defend – and more accurate.

https://www.theglobalist.com/bernie-sanders-socialist-politics-elections/

Is Sanders actually a social democrat?
In the European – and particularly the postwar German – political tradition I come from, there would be no question that Sanders is, in fact, a “social democrat.” That is not a radical or controversial label in the least.

These days in fact, he would qualify on many (though not all) issues as a middle-of-the-road member of Angela Merkel’s CDU, the largest party in the German government (and supposedly right-of-center).

Germany aside, most of Europe’s major center-left parties have been social democratic – not socialist, democratic or otherwise – for nearly 70 years, if not well over 100.

Social democrats believed they could use government, selected by democratic elections, to achieve social improvements via reforms of (or expansions to) government aid programs and regulation of the marketplace and big business. Democracy, properly harnessed, and not a socialist state, would fix social ills.

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

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

Sanders is not a typical socialist. Sure, he believes in a highly regulated and heavily taxed private enterprise, but he does not seem to want the state to own banks and make cars. Considering the negative connotations of “socialism” in America, it is a bit of a puzzle why Sanders insists on using that word. It would be much less contentious and more correct if he gave his worldview its proper name: not “democratic socialism,” which implies socialism brought about through a vote, but social democracy.

In a social democracy, individuals and corporations continue to own the capital and the means of production. Much of the wealth, in other words, is produced privately. That said, taxation, government spending, and regulation of the private sector are much heavier under social democracy than would be the case under pure capitalism.

A Socialist Case Against Bernie 2020
A left-populist campaign inside the Democratic Party will not get us closer to socialism.

https://www.leftvoice.org/a-socialist-case-against-bernie-2020

[Blue_true]

30. The cornerstone of Senator Sanders healthcare plan is POHIBITING private insurers from competing

with the government plan. That is a one choice only plan and that is what a socialist would normally lean toward.

The Nordic systems didn't start out as one option only, they migrated and got better over time to the point where private plans were COMPETITIVELY forced into offering complimentary plans for non vital medical services.

Sorry, but the difference is glaring and I don't see why you are glossing over it.

Also, healthcare is not free in the Nordic plans. Patients have to pay something, with Sweden having the highest rate. What that does is force rational healthcare use while protecting people that have illnesses that they can't control like cancer. So if the town drunk ends up in the hospital every month, he is going to pay for that, whereas a person going to get a cancer treatment sees a maximum payout that is affordable.

I like the concept of state based control of delivery of healthcare and taxing for it. The reason isn't states rights, I think that is bullshit. My reason is this, if politicians in a state are screwing their citizens, they will get voted out. Now those voters can blame the federal government and not the locals. Also, California or New York State doctors and hospitals should not treat a person from Georgia or Alabama, for example, unless that person's state insurance meets the same standard that the blue states plans meet. This may seem heartless to some, but I think in the short run, it is the surest way to get politicians in office who think and act on a broad array of citizens needs instead of single hot button issues. I feel the same way about abortion in the event Roe v Wade gets overturned, the states that keep abortion legal should not accept a woman from a state that outlaw abortion, regardless of whether she can pay or not, this will quickly force the chamber of commerce conservatives to make a choice about whether they can support electing anti abortion politicians. When their precious daughter who they had big college dreams for gets knocked up and can't get on a plane to a sane state to have an abortion, then the less stringent voters will have to make a decision about what they want in terms of governance. Yes, somewhat heartless, but this is the only way that the crusade against safe abortion will be ended.

[Celerity]

33. You really are not well versed in the history of the Nordic

healthcare model. In Sweden, up to 1951 the Swedish sickness insurance system has been that of subsidization of private sick benefit societies (mostly organised around trade unions and co-operatives) known as sjukkassor.

Since 1891 these societies had been subjected to more and more state supervision with it becoming complete by the 1920's. In 1931 the Riksdag organised them so that there was one per municipality. Since 1891 they have received subsidies from both the national and local governments.

In 1955 National Public Health Insurance was instituted, and in 1961 was turned over to the municipalities to administer under the rubric of national oversight.

There never was was mythical 'period of competition' between the state and private health insurance. There also was never a rapacious US-model profit motive introduced in the private sjukkassor. It was only since the mid-noughties that private insurance (used by less than 2% of the populace and strictly as a supplemental form) has even been allowed to co-exist.

[Blue_true]

36. Again, the state worked with what existed early on.

It DID NOT may ANY competition illegal as Bernie is proposing. The Nordics migrated society away from private health plans over time. Eventually assuming complete control and reorganizing from there. How they worked their plan is more in line with how Senator Warren wants to reform our system (if one can call what we have a system, outside of the ACA and Medicare, which I think are examples to build on).

[crazytown]

32. Sanders: "I don't believe government should own the means of production"

This makes me angry. His 'socialism' is a sham.

[Celerity]

34. His self-labelling as a democrat socialist is the 'sham'

He is a bog standard, boilerplate social democrat. If he were a true socialist and actually did campaign for the elimination of capitalism and the governmental takeover of the means of production, he would be lucky to get 1 or 2% of the vote, and that number would only come if he had switched after 2016. If he had run on that platform earlier, he never, ever would have been elected to the House or Senate.

[Blue_true]

37. Yet his proposal would outlaw competition from private health insurance.

So having the only game in town is not government owning the means of production? Your definitions of stuff certainly leave me scratching my head.

[crazytown]

38. I take your point

but I'm not sure there would would be a market for a private insurance buy-out.

[Blue_true]

39. The way to get rid of private insurance for basic healthcare and hospitalization.

Is to offer a government option that competes with and beat them. People will migrate to the government coverage and private insurance will be forced to cover things like cosmetic surgery and other such non vital health services, like in Scandinavia.

But mandating that private plans can't legally compete will simply end up in Court, likely losing. Drop the mandate and out compete them instead, that is what candidates like Senator Warren and Senator Harris are proposing.

[crazytown]

40. I totally agree with you.

I was taking the opposing viewpoint and seeing if private competition is doable.

BTW, AFAIK Senator Harris still supports a monolithic MFA. She would allow private competition, but only for items and services not covered bu Medicare.

[Honeycombe8]

42. He has at times in the past listed his party as "Socialist" & called himself "Democratic Socialist."

Right now he has an "I" for Independent as his party in the Senate. https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenatorsRepresentingThirdorMinorParties.htm

[ooky]

45. +1

Nor are our candidates running on "socialism". It was a really dumb comment by Hickenlooper, IMHO.

[rusty quoin]

3. Not everything should be a commodity. Prisons shouldn't be private.

The goal then is to fill them to capacity.

[msongs]

5. its slavery under a different name but loads of govt employees make a living of this scam nt

[guillaumeb]

4. Socialism for the rich.

Austerity for the rest.

[JudyM]

35. This.

[barbtries]

6. socialism is a trigger word

that means almost nothing at this point. distressing that he would say that. We should not shy from progressivism - maybe concentrate more on the tipping point of capitalism that we're experiencing. i probably would have booed as well. throwing that word around is inflammatory and unnecessary imo.

[emmaverybo]

8. He's not who started throwing it around. I am seeing plenty of progressives using it. I agree

the Republicans fear monger with the concept and they always have, but embracing the term doesn’t change majority voters’ perception of it.
He makes some sense.

[Honeycombe8]

43. I think that was his point. He was saying the way to lose is to identify with "socialism."

Or be socialists. That's how I took it.

He didn't say not be Democrats or capitalists with social programs, which is what America and most First World countries are.

That's what the audience was booing. I guess they identify with socialism.

[CaptainTruth]

7. He said this on Rachel too. He's repeating a Republican talking point.

My question is, who is saying socialism IS the answer?

It makes no sense.

[William Seger]

14. He also took a whack at "identity politics"

Hickenlooper works well with Republicans because he's half-way there already.

[Honeycombe8]

44. It's out there already. He was sounding a warning bell, seems like.

He's right. The word has a bad connotation to many Americans.

He didn't speak against being capitalistic with social programs to ensure fairness, which is what America is (or is supposed to be).

I don't know him, though, to know if he had a hidden meaning. I suspect the audience didn't like him, to begin with. If he's a conservative Democrat, well...he was speaking in California, a pretty progressive state.

[zentrum]

9. Regulating capitalism

......strengthening the safety net and taking profit out of health care and prisons and DHS is today called socialism.

It's tragic really.

[Blue_true]

13. Actually for decades and today what you described is called Social Democracy.

The biggest proponents of that are Senator Warren and Governor Inslee.

[zentrum]

15. Great stuff.

But it's all linked to Socialism with the capital S, and Communism by the RW.

[Peacetrain]

16. We have many socialist ideas..but Democrats are not socialists.. we are pragmatic

and draw from many ideas about how best to govern..

[JHB]

18. Republicans call everything they don't like "socilaist"

They called Obama a socialist, a radical one, even (Saul Alinsky! Saul Alinsky! Saul Alinsky!).

They said it of Hilary Clinton. They said it of Bill Clinton.

"Socialism" is a word they use to get their base seeing cross-eyed and stampeding in a direction they want. They will call anything that helps ordinary people "socialism" because that's what they do, and they can count on an entire messaging apparatus to reinforce that framing.

If Hickenlooper wants to distinguish himself from the pack, he might do better to push back on Republican spin instead of letting them set the frame.

Doesn't Colorado have a US Senate seat up for election in 2020? Why yes, the one currently held by Republican Cory Gardner.

Just a suggestion.

[BeckyDem]

19. He was booed more than once.

bye bye Hickenlooper and all like minded.

[Celerity]

20. A month ago he conflated social democracy with 'discredited ideas of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287105357

some of the comments are great

[BeckyDem]

21. omg some are too funny and yes, others are really great.

Hickenlooper is at his worst with the Stalin reference. Holy cow. lol

Thank you!

[Celerity]

22. even before all this, I had ruled him out as he is very pro-fracking

I love Warren, she is either my 2nd or 3rd choice (I keep going back and forth between her and Harris). If Pete is not the nominee nor the VP, I would LOVE to see a Warren/Harris ticket, or Harris/Warren.

[BeckyDem]

23. Fracking, bogus cheap references to Stalin? Awful.

It is my belief that policies will win the nomination and not so much the candidate. I see Warren as highly intelligent, communicates how corruption works, and how we can still protect ourselves as a nation even while we have the obstacles from Citizen United.

We can still do great things while we all work to turn the tide. I'm a big believer in getting people registered to vote, us little folks can still fight back and win.

[Sapient Donkey]

31. I'm guessing this has to do with a difference in definitions of exactly what socialism is and isn't

or is he actually inline with the republican definition of socialism?

[Honeycombe8]

41. The 2016 Democratic Party Platform doesn't mention socialism. nt