Post #1282

I think the distinction is important because if he's a socialist then pretty much everyone else in the world is as well. Friedrich Hayek wasn't against government aid to the poor including minimum guaranteed income, government provided education or health care. Calling Bernie a socialist because he calls for a 20% bigger social safety net and 20% higher taxes without fundamentally calling for a different economic system (common ownership of the means of production) is inaccurate and, although he doesn't necessarily take it this way, it's often intended as a slander.

Remember how people who commit assault while yelling trump slogans get deemed false tags by the right? I'm sure they'll be quick to dismiss this as a false flag against libruls.

I don't know if you are shifting intentionally or not, but you seemed to characterize the social welfare programs as harmful, but now seem to characterize them as insufficient.

I don't know what you intend to do about fatherless households. I wouldn't necessarily object to some PSAs, but I think that is and should be largely out of the government's purview.

Are "socialist", "democratic socialist" and "national socialist" all basically the same thing?

It's also perverse that being anti-monopoly is characterized as socialist rather than pro free market.

It's just the same black-and-white thinking that all of these terrible positions are based on. You're against robber barons plundering society for max profits and deadweight loss? Full-blown socialist cut from the cloth of a Communist Manifesto cover.

No but democratic socialists are usually comfortable being called socialist.

In the UK anyway.

About Bernie and democratic socialism v social democracy:



A self-described democratic socialist, Sanders is pro-labor and emphasizes reversing economic inequality.[2][3] Many scholars consider his views to be more in line with social democracy and New Deal-era American progressivism than democratic socialism.[4][5]


The story I've heard is he described himself as a "democratic socialist" in order to not confuse voters, as "social democrat" just looked weird considering the big-D party. They're distinct things, but also really close on the spectrum, on both the x and y axes. Pedants searching for that next fix will point out the distinctions, usually exaggerating, but the swapping can work in many cases. (I can show my work if necessary, but short version, democratic socialism does still allow for privatization and is not a spontaneous overhaul, and social democracy requires socialization and nationalization, so it's a matter of degrees.).

Still, he's a social democrat, meaning social democracies like the Nordic-model welfare state, as microbet pointed out.


This article is kinda ****ing atrocious overall but it's 1 of the 2 links on the Bernie wiki, in that snippet about the nomenclature:

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...ialism/471630/

Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, but a social democrat.

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.

...

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.

Lol, "considering the negative connotations of 'socialism' in America that I'm going waaay out of my way to reinforce by stopping just short of outright lying," this ****ing guy.


The other 1 is Chomsky:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btJfkPBLULg

"He's basically a New Dealer. Now, in the current American political spectrum, to be a New Dealer is to be way out on the left. Eisenhower, for example, who said anyone who questions the New Deal doesn't belong in the political system, would be regarded as a raving leftist. So Bernie Sanders is a decent, honest New Dealer. I agree with him on a lot of things, not on other things. I think in our system of mainly bought elections he doesn't have much of a chance, but if he were elected, I think that, of the current candidates, I think he'd be the one who would have, from my point of view, the best policies."

Really hope it's a tweet about the ******ed kid's privilege.

Maybe quick, but not as quick as you? What a slimy post.

This is right, it's about ownership of industries etc rather than size of the welfare state.

An American friend of the family used to tell us how US TV in the 70's would refer to the UK government as "the Socialist government of Britain" regardless of which party was in power, which seemed bizarre.

Well, I can't say what I really mean, which is that I don't think anyone should receive from public coffers without giving something back. Then I'd be called...Well, I don't know what, but you guys would find some derogatory label for it. *******? Racist?

If some has severe Asperger's or Downs Syndrome then I think we all as a society have an obligation to make sure they are taken care of and don't have to wander the streets homeless. You want to increase my tax dollars? Fine! But others who receive welfare need to give something back. I don't care what it is. Those with kids of school age can go down to the country clerks office from 9am-2pm every day and sort rubber bands. Work at a soup kitchen, pass out blankets. Something. I don't think people should be able to sit back and just wait for the next month's welfare without doing anything for it.

I don't think some people here realize just how much the system is abused.

For a start, stop putting them in jail for non violent crimes. But do hold them accountable for the kids they produce. Also, planned parenthood sounds like a good start. Put an end to this ridiculous religious dogma that contraception is a sin! Sorry if this sounds cold, but maybe if the best job you can get right now is being a Walmart greeter you're not quite ready to start a family yet.

I Googled PSA and nothing relevant turned up.

Please, enlighten us then. Remember to use citations.

I'll have to check out those links and learn more about what socialism really means. It was my impression he's pretty much a socialist who had to run on a democratic ticket to have any chance of being elected. IOW, he wouldn't have a chance running as a 3rd party socialist.

I'm not sure there's a single thing I've heard him say that I fundamentally disagree with. But I think some of his prescriptions might be wrong. For instance, he likes to blame big banks and corporations for making too much profit. Well that's a little silly to me because that's their ****ing job to make profit! The problem is with governmental regulations that lets them get away with risking customer funds without recourse. Oh, you guys messed up? That's okay. The government will just bail you out (I could be wrong on this because I think Sanders was against the bail out, as was I).

The problem isn't with banks and big business. The problem is with government and lobbyists who allow these companies to get away with murder. They (and their shareholders) make billions a year in profit while paying employees poverty level wages. They get away with this because the government creates every tax loophole in the book so they can stash cash overseas, or disburse it to other sources without any of it going to the employees who created all that wealth.

I realize I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. On the one hand, I'm saying corporations should be allowed to make as much profit as they want. On the other hand, there should be some cap so that companies like Walmart can't rake in billions of profits every year while paying employees minimum wage.

I recognize the need for socialistic programs. I'm all for libraries, museums, culture, infrastructure, public education, and welfare to help those truly in need. But I also feel too much regulation stifles competition and makes it harder for other companies to compete with the Goliaths.

I'm asking here, not telling. What system works best? Socialism, Capitalism, or some combination of the two? I'm all for getting government out of the way and allowing companies to compete, profit, and innovate without stifling regulations all over the place. It's just not enough of the profits are going to employees and being fed back into the economy. The middle class is being eliminated. And it's the middle class who is supposed to be buying the products the rich create. So we're reaching a point where there are a handful of obscenely wealthy people while most everyone else struggles.

Hmm. Kind of hard to come up with citations in the form of statistics. Not too many people check the box sponging the system when asked. But here's what made me say that.

A guy I play poker with (white dude) invited me over to fix something in his house. He and his gf live in a nicer neighborhood and they both collect disability. He's got a gimpy leg, and she has back and mental health problems (not really). So neither of them work and sit around all day drinking until their check money runs out.

That's just one of several people I know. Do you consider unemployment welfare? I kind of do. I've never collected it in my life even when I was entitled to it. I know several people who sit around send in fake job apps and collect full unemployment until it runs out. Then they go get a job. It's kind of like an extended vacation for them. But I guess they and their previous company paid into it so it's not technically welfare. Still, if enough people do it, it bleeds the system.

If you think there aren't plenty of people collecting welfare, disability checks, and food stamps who could at least be making some effort to work, you're gullible and kidding yourself. I suppose it's the price we have to pay to ensure those who actually need it get theirs. But I'd think something could be done to cut down on those who abuse the system.

There's a reason for that -- such citations don't exist. Rampant welfare fraud is yet another right-wing mythology you seem to coincidentally buy into. Remember Reagan and the "welfare queens"? That's where this comes from. Truth is, the majority of people on welfare actually have a job.

How did I know the citation was going to be an anecdote? Just psychic, I guess. Also, disability is not welfare, it's part of Social Security.

Of course not. It's insurance. It's right there in the name -- Unemployment INSURANCE. You pay premiums, you collect if the bad thing you're insuring against happens.

And, of course, more anecdotes.

This is the truest thing you've posted. All systems have inefficiencies. There's no such thing as a perfect system. Is it worth it to try and cut down on abuse? Most literature I've seen has welfare fraud in the 2-3% range, so it actually probably isn't -- especially when the effect of "streamlining" the system or making it more "efficient" is to kick people off welfare who legitimately and desperately need it. I have zero problem with the current amount of abuse in the system if it means more families are covered.

Out of interest. This is from the wiki page

But I don't see how you don't have a problem with KEEPING these people on welfare! Welfare clearly isn't enough if they still can't climb out of poverty. I'm all for increasing my taxes MORE if necessary to provide schooling for the recipients and better education for their children. The goal should to get people OFF of welfare and be self supportive. Not cause them to be married to it. You said yourself (and I've said it too) that there are people working these ridiculous p/t Walmart jobs who STILL need welfare. You don't think there's something seriously flawed with such a system?

The answer isn't welfare for able bodied people. That's a good short term solution to help people who fall on hard times. But the problem needs to be addressed at the base. Better education, job training, etc.

Exactly. Or even a little bit more. Or even a little bit more than that.

A bunch of people beat the **** out of a mentally challenged kid shouting "**** Trump Supporters." 3 of the 6 responses to this are essentially "**** Trump Supporters." The other 3 responses are 2 "conservative" posters and Autocratic. Really staking out that moral high ground.

You keep trying to make this a binary thing when it isnt. People can both need help, and be working to improve their education and employment. Shocking! We have the means in this country to improve education and help train people for better jobs while also providing them assistance if they don't have enough to make it. People who try to make it a binary choice are essentially saying "**** you if you need to eat, here's a class on how to build robots. Good luck mother****er."

Lestat,

Paying nearly everyone to do nothing is the only way that society will survive the coming robot jobpocalypse. Your moocher friends are pioneers paving the way for the brave new future. If we can't get over your attitude we're basically doomed. It's either UBI, violent revolutionary overthrow of the capital owning class or genocidal depopulation of the non capital owning classes. Those are the only three options for the near future.

Agree, but options 1 and 3 aren't mutually exclusive.

eg if UBI is set at a level to allow most non-working couples' combined income to only provide for one child they can achieve option 3 within a few generations. Now which country does that remind me of?

So those who can't afford health care and food... die in the streets?