Koinos
Koinos's JournalI can't find anything to disagree with in this article.
Bernie lacks self-knowledge. He judges others, but he does not cross-examine himself. He blames others, but he accepts no responsibility for his own words and actions. He rouses anger in himself and others, but he has no idea how to put it out. He finds fault with Democrats, but he does not acknowledge their heroic efforts to make things better. When people succeed, it is because they stand on the shoulders of others, not because they shove others aside.
It appears to me that Bernie has a bit more than just a tinge of arrogance.
Humility and self-knowledge are traits well worth acquiring. They lead to wisdom.
Bernie needs to learn that.
I found his saying that to be very weird, as if he couldn't be bothered with mundane money matters.
Isn't his whole campaign about money, who has it, who doesn't have it, and why? It seems to me that he ought to have educated himself a bit more about money and numbers (math), if he wanted to prescribe cures for "income inequality." Or does he just want to spout words, without any intention of getting something done? Getting something done about money requires knowledge of money and financial transactions. He seems to be better versed in Marxist theory than he is in economics or finance. Maybe he just never bothered to study this stuff, since he regarded finance as a corrupt profession dominated by evil capitalists. For my part, I enjoy learning about everything, even things that fall outside of my talents or interests. I am curious about what makes things work. But, if you want to criticize banking and finance, you have to begin by thoroughly understanding the system and how it operates. Blaming billionaires for everything lacks nuance, and it doesn't really accomplish anything.
I think that neither Bernie nor Jane has any intention of releasing any tax returns.
They have too much to hide about their assets (multiple properties and possible rental income), lack of charitable donations (Sanders doesn't believe in charity), indirect investments in fracking and other oil and gas interests (mutual funds, etc.), $200k golden parachute paid to Jane for running Burlington College into bankruptcy, Sanders campaign money paid to Jane (for her services), toxic waste committee money paid to Jane, and god knows what else.
I suppose that Jane has every reason to avoid public scrutiny at this time. But, since they filed jointly and Bernie signed the 1040, it is his responsibility to release the tax forms as well. Passing the buck and the blame to Jane lessens Bernie's credibility. How can he talk about breaking up banks, when he can't even understand or manage his own personal financial accounts? Potential voters have a right to know this stuff.
In the end, he and Jane will be saved by the bell. Hillary's winning the primary will turn out to be a blessing, because there will no longer be any need for him to release anything, until his Vermont Democratic rival in 2018 makes the same demand once again.
"Trump too Horrifying for Stephen King"
http://www.juancole.com/2016/05/trump-horrifying-stephen.htmlAnd:
"Stephen King, Junot Dias Among 600 US Writers Who Condemn Trump"
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Stephen-King-Among-600-US-Writers-Who-Condemn-Trump-in-Letter-20160525-0052.html
Here's the letter:
Now, what is it that Cornel West and Jeff Weaver see in this guy?
Authoritarianism versus Democracy
Both Sanders and Trump are authoritarians, who do not respect majority rule. Trump wants to be a "boss," and Sanders wants to accomplish everything with executive power and use protests and bullying to get Congress to go along. Sanders has no confidence even in a Democratic Congress, since he deems the Democratic party to be corrupt and "moribund." So he expects to function as a "lone ranger" with millions of angry disciples to apply pressure to corporatist politicians. I doubt that he would have the patience to go the slow route of getting like-minded "democratic socialists" elected. Moreover, like his followers, he has little confidence in voters, the majority of whom appear to him to be ill-informed and uneducated in the enlightened values of his purist ideology. In his view, the many ignorant have to be forced to believe and do what is right by the enlightened few. Of course, rule by an enlightened few directly contradicts the genuine meaning of democracy. With democracy, people don't take orders from a minority. They work together, despite their differences, with dialogue and mutual respect, to arrive at goals that further the well-being of all; and they employ methods which do not encroach on the rights of minorities. In a democracy, the will of the majority is decisive; but the Bill of Rights and other safeguards serve to limit the potential overreach of the majority.
I look forward to the day when we can speak freely everywhere in DU, not just this group.
Authoritarian suppression and anger gets in the way of agreement, disagreement, and dialogue among well-meaning individuals and friends.
Thanks for your excellent statements!
Socialism, like capitalism, is an economic structure or theory. Democracy, on the other hand, is a human or social arrangement, a way of life, or an attitude. Its leading ideals are liberty, equality, and fraternity. Its methods include joint striving for individual and social fulfillment.
Capitalism or socialism, whatever their respective merits as economic theories, can be governed by democratic or authoritarian principles.
Even corporations, whose purpose is profit for shareholders or owners, can benefit from democratic methods where individual opinions of workers are respected and solicited by management.
Many corporations, however, tend to be authoritarian or "hierarchical" in structure. Management commands, and workers obey. Management owns the assets, so management is always right.
On the other hand, socialist economics can be subservient to principles of freedom, equality, and cooperation which characterize democracy. People can willingly or freely embrace socialist methods of using wealth.
Or socialist economics can be imposed by authoritarian "masters" on the masses "for their own good." In that case, principles of democracy are violated for the sake of greater efficiency and order with regard to distribution of wealth.
In theory, socialism should promote democracy; and capitalism tends to favor authoritarian systems of command and obey.
In fact, genuine instances of democracy can be found coexisting with a variety of economic or mixed economic frameworks; and authoritarianism can appear in a variety of economic or mixed economic frameworks.
The problem is one of people and their attitudes -- whether they prefer to boss others around and be bossed by others or whether they prefer to work side by side with others as equals who think and decide for themselves.
The key is not our economic structures or social arrangements. It is how we arrive at them -- by democratic choice or by authoritarian imposition.
Thank you for posting the excellent article! It gave me something to think about.
Bernie Sanders has been trying to force the Democratic party to make him their nominee, despite the fact that he has accumulated fewer votes and fewer delegates. He and his unfortunate followers are about to find out what democracy is all about. It is not about rule by a minority faction. It is about majority rule, with protection for minority rights. There is nothing "democratic," about Bernie's so-called "democratic socialism." It is "authoritarian socialism," pure and simple. It would compel the majority to believe and act in accordance with a minority that claims to know better than the majority what is best for them. Threats and compulsion are authoritarian, not democratic, methods. Bernie and his followers together lack the self-reflection to recognize the danger that their absolutist positions pose to a genuinely democratic way of life.
Democracy, as a way of life and as a political regime, is a hard thing to achieve and even harder to maintain. There is something about human beings that longs for the easy way, for simple answers, for command and obey authoritarian structures. It gets tiring for us to try to figure things out for ourselves and make our own decisions. Following an authoritarian leader seems more comforting. Believing as we are told to believe eliminates the struggle of "yes and no," of debate within ourselves, of thinking for ourselves. That is why declining democracies tend to turn into authoritarian regimes. Confused people turn to strong leaders with simple answers for everything. Nuance is disquieting and inconvenient. Finally, authoritarianism has nothing to do with "left wing" or "right wing." It can sprout from any ideology. It is an attitude, not a list of beliefs or positions.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Apr 17, 2015, 09:43 AMNumber of posts: 2,792
