Bernie answered the "socialist" question perfect in town hall last night

[LeftTurn3623]

Below is the Transcript from last night on this question. This is how you answer it. You point out corporate socialism. Throw the question right back at whoever ask it. We live in a country that corporate socialism is going on everyday. The bailout to the banks & wall-street ...etc. This is an answer that people can understand and makes sense.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


QUESTION: If you're the nominee, you're expected to face criticism such as President Trump stating, quote, "America will never be a socialist country," end quote. For Americans who hold this concern, whether well-founded or not, how do you successfully overcome that kind of labelling to convince them to vote for you?

SANDERS: Good. Well, in two ways. In many ways, Donald Trump is a socialist himself. He is a socialist who believes in massive help to large corporations and the rich.

When Trump was a private businessman -- he was a real estate developer -- he himself received some $800 million in tax breaks and subsidies to build luxury condominiums. That's called socialism for the very, very rich.

When we give tax breaks and subsidies to the fossil fuel industry to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars so they can produce a product which is destroying the planet, this is called socialism for large corporations, corporate socialism.

Now, my definition of socialism, needless to say, is a little bit different. And I think if you look at countries around the world, look at countries in Scandinavia -- Finland, Sweden, Denmark -- what do they have? Everybody in those countries has health care as a human right. They vary a little bit, but by and large, it is a right. You don't have to take out your wallet. It is available to all people. In those countries, Germany, other countries, higher education is

basically free. In those countries, you have strong childcare systems so Mom and Dad can go to work and know that their kids are going to be in high-quality affordable childcare.

Their housing programs are strong. In other words, they have run governments which have policies designed to help the working families and the middle class.

So I know that Trump will distort anything and everything I believe, and by the way, he'll call any Democrat a socialist. So, you know, that will happen. But we will discuss what democratic socialism means as opposed to the corporate socialism that Trump believes in.

[Pacifist Patriot]

1. That was handled very well!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Except that he's wrong about the Scandinavian countries, which aren't socialist.

With the exceptions of Finland and Iceland, they are constitutional monarchies. All of them are parliamentary democracies and are examples of regulated capitalism with robust social programs paid for with much higher taxes than Americans would tolerate, and in the case of Norway, in part with income derived from its North Sea oil industry. Sanders insists we should be just like Denmark, which would be great since Denmark is a pretty good place to live. But he misrepresents how Denmark and the other Nordic countries work by calling them socialist.

[HerbChestnut]

3. You're not wrong, but try explaining that to a general audience.

The word socialism gets thrown around so much that it's practically lost all meaning.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. The word is toxic precisely because a lot of people still associate it with

the old Soviet Union and Communism in general. And Bernie was once involved with a "socialist" party that was, in fact, Communist. Don't think that won't be dredged up by the GOP.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

14. Millennials now outnumber Baby Boomers.

The socialist boogy man is going away.

And, for the record, some of us that were alive for the Cold War (I'm Gen X by a couple years) know that the socialist boogy man was bullshit, McCarthy was a lying prick, and that we have strong elements of socialism already in our country. So the number of people that are going to shit their pants about "socialism" is not large and getting smaller all the time.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. Boomers are the most reliable voters, and there are still a whole lot of us.

Old people vote. The youngest bloc goes to rallies and does social media all day but doesn't bother to actually vote. This has been true for decades.

[awesomerwb1]

32. They may outnumber baby boomers

but that's meaningless if they don't out-vote baby boomers. Massive difference.

[ahoysrcsm]

121. Find me a Millennial that can take their eyes away from their phone...

for one minute to vote.

Can't even get them to put away the phone during work hours.

[Autumn]

67. Younger people don't have a problem with that word at all.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

72. Younger people don't vote. Old people do.

[Autumn]

74. Bullcrap, younger people do vote. Not in the numbers that older people do but they do vote.

Might want to get them on our side, we older people won't be around to be the base of the party forever.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

79. "Not in the numbers that older people do." Exactly my point.

Even here in Minnesota, which tends to have the highest voter turnout in the country, the percentage of young voters was 50% in 2016, while the percentage for people 70-75 was 85%. That 35% can make a huge difference. And here you can register for the first time at the polls with nothing more than your proof of residence. It's the easiest place in the world to vote, and they still don't do it. https://www.sos.state.mn.us/media/3054/minnesota-presidential-general-election-estimated-turnout-by-age-group.pdf

[Autumn]

85. If you think you can win elections with that percentage of the party I wish you luck. If you give

people a reason to vote they will vote.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

107. Old people always vote.

Young people didn’t vote in comparable numbers even in 1972 when they had a major reason - Viet Nam and the draft.

[Autumn]

112. Well, good luck.

[LisaM]

81. Younger people in blue states and big cities don't.

I don't think that's as true in the south, and in states like Wyoming and Oklahoma.

[TwilightZone]

15. It hasn't lost meaning at all.

Incorrect usage of it doesn't change the definition. Sanders hasn't helped by claiming that it represents things it simply doesn't. He's not even a socialist in the context of the countries he references, but that doesn't stop him, unfortunately.

[George II]

8. That's true, I don't understand why he dwells on comparing Denmark, a country of only 5.6 million...

...to the United States, a country of 330 million people. It's totally illogical.

[pampango]

101. Why can't a large wealthy country do what a small wealthy country does?

Do small countries have an advantage over large countries?

[LeftTurn3623]

9. well he never said they were

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Actually, he did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/11/bernie-sanders-says-denmark-is-socialist-forbes-magazine-says-its-the-most-business-friendly-country-whos-right/

[TheFarseer]

57. You're right

The Scandinavian countries are not socialist and neither is what he is proposing. I wish he had chosen a different label frankly.

[Perseus]

100. And that is exactly what Sanders is promoting "regulated capitalism", not "socialism".

His biggest mistake was to answer "if you think free education, free healthcare is socialism then sure, call me a socialist" when asked about it because he allowed the media, repubs and those who do not like him to label him as a "socialist" and there could be nothing further than Sanders being a socialist.

"higher taxes than Americans would tolerate", sorry but that is another meme from the other guys. When USA citizens understand that the higher taxes to pay for those things Bernie, and Warren, are proposing will actually save them money they will accept it with open arms. That other one that "people love their private insurance" is just a meme put out by the insurance industry and the republicans.

Do the math, and you will see that higher taxes when you and your family get free education and free health care that you will come ahead, ask anyone from Canada about that, anyone in France, or anyone from those Scandinavian countries.

Such an awful meme "higher taxes than Americans would tolerate". I would like to know what "Americans" are those, because I know a lot of us who understand it and would be glad to pay higher taxes while saving on everything else.

Another meme to remember "Medicaid for all would make people wait to be seen by a Dr.", we already have that problem in the USA. Not sure if everyone has noticed, but 8 out of 10 USA citizens are taking prescription drugs, they spend hours at the Dr almost every month, and when you call because you do have to see the doctor they schedule you three weeks from that day. I never go to the doctor, I hope it stays that way, but a few months ago I had a lot coughing, was not feeling well, I called to find out if I could get an appointment that day, or the next, and they said the only opening was about three weeks from that day, I told the nurse that by then I would be either dead or feeling well so I would not need to see the doctor, she said "sorry, its what we have", I hang up and decided to take some natural ginger tea (actually buying the root), and some other natural remedies made at home, and in three days I was back like new...almost new, age does play games...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

104. The problem is that he's stuck himself with that label

and he won’t be able to get rid of it.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

4. His answer was a total evasion.

Socialism is not about tax-breaks.

Nor are countries in Scandinavia -- Finland, Sweden, Denmark--socialist states. Each of these countries have advanced capitalist economies.

Having generous social programs is not "socialism."

Sanders is being completely disingenuous about the nature of socialism.

Socialism is about the collective ownership of the means of production and distribution.

His answer isn't "perfect" in any regard.

[LeftTurn3623]

7. where did he say those countries are socialist ?

He never said that.

He said look at those countries basically saying they have socialist ideas that can work anywhere

[George II]

10. He's said it many times, particularly Denmark.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. And he pissed off the Danes, who replied very emphatically

that they are not socialist and emphasized their strong market economy. https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist

[SunSeeker]

61. Exactly. Yet Bernie keeps invoking them. It's very misleading. nt

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

20. Baloney.

He said: "my definition of socialism, needless to say, is a little bit different."

Then he mentioned a bunch of capitalist Scandinavian countries as his idea of socialism.

Not a single one of these countries are socialist states, as Sanders must know fully well.

He can't point to an actual socialist state as a model, because socialism is a failed ideology.

We, as Democrats, have a better model. It's called liberal democracy. The Scandinavian states Sanders mentioned are all liberal democracies.

[democrattotheend]

86. I thought many of those countries have parties that call themselves Socialist

And promote similar policies as Bernie.

I don't think it's so black and white regarding whether a country is socialist or capitalist. Most countries, including ours, are somewhere along the spectrum. There are no pure capitalist countries and while Cuba is probably the closest thing to a pure socialist country, even that is changing. Most European countries are somewhere on the spectrum but a little closer to socialism than the US.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

93. No, they don't call themselves socialist.

In fact the PM of Denmark (a country frequent mentioned by Sanders) has objected quite strongly to the false characterizations.

These are advanced capitalist states that embrace liberal democracy and strong social welfare programs. They are not socialist states.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. He's said it repeatedly, much to the ire of those countries' leaders.

[George II]

38. Just one example:

Bernie Sanders' American Dream is in Denmark

The Danes are following the race with an astounding level of enthusiasm and interest in part because Bernie Sanders, one of the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, won't stop talking about them.
Sanders has proudly adopted the label of a "democratic socialist," and he has pointed to Denmark as a model for his vision of an ideal American future.

In Denmark, there is a very different understanding of what "freedom" means... they have gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties that comes with economic insecurity.

At a presidential debate hosted by CNN in October, Sanders brought up Denmark and the surrounding Scandinavian states when asked to describe what "democratic socialism" means to him.

"I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway," Sanders said, "and learn what they have accomplished for their working people."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-denmark-democratic-socialism/index.html

[grantcart]

68. Norway has the highest per capita sovereign fund in history

You could make the argument that not only is it not socialist but operates the most successful Democratic Capitalist country in the world. Singapore is a much more socialist country than any Scandinavian country.

But he loosely interchanges key terms revealing a very superficial grasp of economic terms. Canada, does not have, for example socialized medicine but socialized insurance. The actual health system is much more market driven than the US, and in a good way.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

16. And Sanders doesn't want the US to be a socialist country, either.

But don't let that stop you.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

24. He doesn't want the US to embrace the ideology he espouses?

If true, it is the first time that I've found myself in agreement with the man.

Curious that he's identify with an ideology he doesn't believe in, though.

What's the purpose in that???

[Cuthbert Allgood]

31. I'm torn

Part of me wants to take the time to explain to you how we already are not a pure capitalist country and point out the socialistic elements we already have leading to the conclusion that one does not need to become a pure socialist country to use the parts of socialism that work.

The other part of me is pretty sure you are being deliberately obtuse because you just hate Sanders so much that you feel going back to the Cold War and beating the socialism is the boogie man drum is a cool thing to do.

I'm pretty sure it's the latter and leave it at that.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

34. The government does not own the means of production and

distribution in this country.

The tired (and false) argument that police & fire, libraries, and schools are "socialism" is totally bogus--and is, in fact, a right wing talking point.

Who is being obtuse? Not me, I can assure you.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

39. Maybe not deliberately obtuse.

Are you seriously saying that our country is completely free market economy? That we are not a mixed economy? There are no centrally controlled portions of the economy?

Because, if you think that, you most certainly are obtuse.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

40. The means of production are not owned by the state.

Having government run social programs or a military or other publicly run infrastructure are not examples of "socialism."

Suggesting otherwise borders on gaslighting.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

42. Really really need to read about free market vs mixed economy.

We are not a completely free market economy. We are a mixed economy. Meaning we have elements of capitalism and socialism. The government does own some means of production.

But I'm not teaching you an econ class. That you need to figure out on your own. But, really, you are wrong. Not being an ass, just pointing out an area of ignorance for you.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

44. I have an advanced degree in politics and political economy and know fully well

when I'm being gaslighted.

Next you can explain how the communist Socialist Workers Party is really a liberal democratic party.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

49. Well, then, did you not cover a mixed economy?

Because we are one.

I have never, nor would I, claim that the Socialist Workers Party was not a communist party. I got their newspapers in the 80s and 90s.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

50. I now what a mixed economy is, and it ain't socialism.

Who are to trying to fool?

The United States and all the advanced Social Democracies are not Democratic Socialist states.

Nice try anyway.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

51. So you would agree that the United States is a social democracy?

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

56. We have many things in common with liberal European social democracies

although we've tended to have less extensive social welfare programs and lower tax rates in correlation.

The US and social democracies have advanced capitalist economies and firm committments to liberal democracy. Neither embrace socialism.

[mwooldri]

69. It was too long an answer but one thing is right

DJT is a Corporate Socialist.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

78. No. Donald Trump is a guy who has taken advantage of many government subsidies

(a practice learned from his father, who build his empire on such tax breaks) and he has been able to demand other tax breaks for projects that defy reason, and he has enriched himself by cheating on his taxes by valuing properties at very low levels on the tax roles and very high levels when needing loans.

Trump is a crook. Some of the advantages he's taken have been "legal" (even when they may not have been in the interest of the public and other were criminal. But noe were examples of "socialism."

Words have meanings.

[HarlanPepper]

6. If you're explaining you're losing.

Americans don’t do nuance. At all. They will here the raise taxes part of his ideas and nothing else. There are no successful modern presidential campaigns built on the promise of middle class tax increases.

[Scurrilous]

30. The GOP knows that.

[BlueIdaho]

11. That may be the best he's done with that question...

But Trump won’t call him a socialist, he’ll call him a communist. Then Bernie will be spending his time explaining the difference between the two. There is an old political adage - when you are explaining, you are losing.

I wish him, and all our candidates well.

[patphil]

12. A perfect response.

What the Republicans call socialism is, in reality, a Democratic government doing it's job of taking care of the people who comprise the nation.
The citizens elect people to run the country for the good of the people.
That's what Lincoln was talking about when he said, "the government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
It's a bottom up philosophy that insures the great mass of the citizens have a voice in their government, and that the government responds to that voice.
Back then, the Republicans recognized this.

Now the Republicans adhere to the philosophy of "government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy".
They hear the voices of the rich and powerful, and respond to their needs.
They encourage greed and division...the haves and the havenots...the us and the not us.
As George Carlin used to say, "the game is rigged".

Patrick Phillips

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

35. So we should frame our politics as Democrats by adopting right-wing talking points?

I think not.

[patphil]

83. Say what?

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

90. You said that a Democratic government doing it's job of taking care of the people

is what the Republicans call socialism.

If we allow the re-framing (or even false advance the same notion) then we are taking up right-wing talking points and that's a huge mistake.

Clear enough?

[patphil]

115. Thank you for clarifying your position.

Now, I should point out that socialism is a large part of the way a Democracy does business. If that is a talking point for the Republicans, then it is.
But, the truth is that we have many examples of socialism in government, and that isn't going to change.
Examples:

Roads and bridges.
Municipal water.
Municipal sewage.
Municipal schools.
Building codes.
Zone codes.
Licensing requirements.
Police and Fire Departments.
Food stamps.
WIC programs.
Social Security.

All of these things, and many more, are examples of a Democratic Government taking care of its people.

The Republicans has created a false narrative around the word socialism that suits their purposes, but isn't accurate as applied to what is actually happening.
It's not a mistake to bring this up, and confront Republicans on their selective definition of the term.
This is what Bernie Sanders did.
Socialism is any government service given to the people. It provides for the good of society, as it should.
The problem is when it is selectively applied to further the purpose of a few at the expense of the many, especially when that few has no inherent need that the government should fill for the good of the whole.

If we abandon the concept of a government existing to serve the needs of the public at large, then we concede to them any expectation of the government working for all the people, as opposed to working for a tiny percent of the people.

If this is their talking point, then I say we call them on it.

Patrick Phillips

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

116. No Patrick. Road building, municipal water, and schools are not examples of socialism.

By such a (false) definition nearly every civilization on earth would be "socialist."

The Roman Empire would be "socialist."

This is entirely false.

Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production and distribution.

Calling Social Security "socialism" is a right-wing talking point, so I renew my objection.

[patphil]

117. Yes, you are correct in your definition of socialism.

And, you are correct that the Republicans define Social Security as socialism, and it is indeed one of their talking points.

The problem is that the Republicans have re-defined the term socialism to suit their purposes. Our government has never sought to own the means of production and distribution. But, it has sought to provide for the needs of its people.

Unless, in the narrow Republican definition, you consider the redistribution of wealth, there has never been a time when the US government owned and distributed the means of production.
And wealth is exactly what the Republicans are referring to.
They consider it socialistic to use government funds to help the common people.
And, using their definition, our government, as put forth by the Democrats, is socialistic.

I merely carried their false narrative to the extreme with many of my examples.
Of course, if you're a Republican, it isn't socialistic to give huge subsidies to various industries, or give gigantic tax cuts to a tiny percentage of the citizenry.
From the Republican point of view, it's only socialism when it helps people other than them.
Yes, that is a Republican talking point.
Identifying this point as a fake narrative is not a problem for me.
It needs to be exposed for the BS that it is.
And, under their definition, I have no problem calling Social Security socialism.
Just try and take it away from the 63 million (2019 figure) people that are collecting it.
We are wasting our time trying to deny their narrative, we need to show it up for the BS that it is.

Patrick Phillips

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

118. So we should not allow the false narratives of the GOP to frame

our discussions, wouldn't you agree?

I do have a problem adopting the right-wing talking point of calling Social Security "socialism."

50-100 million people have been killed in political murders by socialist regiemes around the world in the past 100 years or so. This is not an ideology to "rehabilitate" in my estimation, and not an ideology we want to link with one of the great achievements of the liberal Democratic Party.

It is too dangerous a lie not to counter, IMO.

[patphil]

119. OK, I accept your position.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

120. ..

[Scurrilous]

17. Bernie Sanders Stint at 'Stalinist' Kibbutz Draws Red-Baiting From Right

It's not going to be that easy. Not even close. He hid this for 53 years. I wonder why? Good luck.


"It didn’t take long after news broke that Bernie Sanders had volunteered decades ago on a hard-left kibbutz in Israel for right-wing critics to start lobbing ever-scarier adjectives at him.

The Democratic presidential candidate’s stint at Kibbutz Sha’ar Ha’Amakim in northern Israel proves to conservatives that he isn’t just a “socialist” but a hard-core Marxist or even a “Stalinist,” far outside the American mainstream.

“Bernie Sanders’s 1963 stay at a Stalinist kibbutz,” was the title of Thomas Lifson’s piece on the site American Thinker, posted soon after the kibbutz was identified after months of mystery. Over at Frontpage Magazine, Daniel Greenfield’s article ran under the headline: “Bernie Sanders Spent Months at Marxist-Stalinist Kibbutz.”

The descriptions seem damning, especially from the perspective of more than 50 years since Stalin’s death and the world’s absorption of the reality of his murderous, dictatorial and anti-Semitic regime. Yet at the time, as the two right-wing websites point out, Hashomer Hatzair, the kibbutz movement that Sha’ar Ha’Amakim belonged to, had quite a different perspective.

On the day of Stalin’s death, March 5, 1953, the front page of Al Hamishmar, the movement’s newspaper, carried a photo of the late Soviet leader under a full-width headline: “The Progressive World Mourns the Death of Stalin.” Greenfield at Frontpage concludes: “Bernie Sanders wasn’t there because he liked Israel. Hashomer Hatzair did not like Israel. It ultimately wanted to destroy it.”

https://forward.com/news/333020/bernie-sanders-stint-at-stalinist-kibbutz-draws-red-baiting-from-right/

[k2qb3]

18. These days everyone left of Marco Rubio is a communist...

and they're not sure about him.

It's a weakness. It's foolish to tie yourself to a word associated with totalitarian regimes.

I don't think it's an attack that's going to have any real power with anyone who isn't already solidly in the Trump camp.

I think the right risks making the mistake of running against the caricature. A campaign against Stalin isn't going to be all that effective against Sanders.

I wish we had a candidate with no electoral weaknesses, but such a candidate would probably not have any electoral strengths either.

Bloomberg is not going to pull in the moderates people seem to think he is, independents don't like authoritarians. In many ways he's the worst of all worlds for this moment. Biden's mental lapses are his real problem, Trump will crush him with them. Pete's gay (another weakness the right will likely overplay into a strength) and inexperienced, Warren has presentation issues, some valid and some less so.

Pick your poison, don't pretend any of them are safe.

[bunny planet]

22. Bernie was spot on in focusing on socialism for the rich and throwing the term right back at trump

and highlighting his support of 'corporate socialism' It's more like corporate welfare in actuality but Bernie described it in understandable terms that most people will respond to when they hear it.


This link describes the differences between communism and socialism quite well, as well as modern interpretations of socialism within capitalist systems....while an out and out socialist just lost the elections in the UK, there are Democratic Socialists and parties in almost every government in Western European democracies.

https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448

[Main_St_Not_Wall_St]

25. Accurate but not effective

While factually correct and 100% on the money, this demonstrates a common problem with Democratic/Liberal/Progressive political style and communication. This answer should have ended at "this is called socialism for large corporations, corporate socialism". Drop the mic.

You don't win on facts, depth or information. You win on emotion and appeals to the gut. How many of Trump's answers in the 2016 debates - among Republicans and against HRC - used all of his available time? I'd bet close to 0. He does his little incoherent schtick, drops in one of his tried and true mantras and he's done. He then forces everyone else to play to his framing. It's not about the underlying data that informs your policy perspective - it's about how you make people react to the base content of the answer.

We've all heard of Trump's mantra of "hit back 10 times harder" and it's a good object lesson in how Trump works and how we need to fight back. Physically hitting someone is violent and reactionary. It is succinct and extraordinarily focused on one spot. Trump does the same with messaging: violent, reactionary succinct, highly specific and targeted. He doesn't linger, he doesn't pontificate or "take a deep dive".

Everything Bernie says after "this is called socialism for large corporations, corporate socialism" weakens the most visceral core of his argument. He's handing the fight over to his opponent (which is this case is the viewer). They now can say "oh listen, he admits he's a socialist, he thinks Europe is better than the US!". He creates his own rebuke the question. Don't do that. Leave it at "what about corporate welfare?". Make your opponent answer that question, make them justify your frame of reference.

[Midnightwalk]

46. Agree with stopping at corporate socialism

Maybe add in a “America needs to work for the middle class again”. However best to phrase it.

As you say throw their term back at them and don’t acknowledge their framing.

When you’re explaining you’re losing. Nuance doesn’t work in American politics. Wishing won’t make it work.

[DeminPennswoods]

26. It is a good answer

When democratic socialism or socialism or whatever you want to tag it, is explained to voters in this way, they like it.

They like the idea of universal health care (not insurance), help with childcare expenses, not having to go bankrupt to finance a 2 yr, 4yr or graduate degree and so on.

They don't like companies that don't pay a living wage, offer benefits, are intent on shifting as many labor costs as possible onto employees, that get tax breaks for destroying neighborhoods by gentrification or redevelopment and that don't pay their fair share of taxes.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

27. The Socialist Workers Party is a communist party.

So time will be spent trying to explain the differences between Trotskyite communists and Stalinist communists, complicated by the fact that Sha’ar HaAmakim falls into the latter camp.

[Gothmog]

28. trump really wants to run against socialism and a weak caniddate like sanders

sanders answer is weak and trump would destroy sanders if sanders was the nominee

Link to tweet

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. I am wondering whether Americans would tolerate Denmark's tax model

by which it supports its welfare programs. When Sanders referred to Denmark as "socialist" in 2015, its PM said, Oh, hell no, we're not, and explained that it's a capitalist market economy with robust social programs supported by high taxes on everybody:

“So, what is the catch you might ask. The most obvious one, of course, is the high taxes. The top income tax in Denmark is almost 60 percent. We have a 25 percent sales tax and on cars the incise duties are up to 180 percent. In total, Danish taxes come to almost half of our national income compared to around 25 percent in the US. Quite a substantial difference.” https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist

[TexasTowelie]

48. There is more involved than higher tax rates.

I noted some other considerations in post #47.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

52. Sure, but could anybody sell it?

[greymattermom]

33. WOW love it

Trump and Republicans are corporate socialists. Easy to say, easy to understand.

[ismnotwasm]

36. That's a pretty damn good answer.

[Raven123]

37. Excellent response

The GOP has a distorted view of socialism that equates every government sponsored effort to bridge economic inequality, help the climate, and provide universal healthcare as socialism, completely ignoring their own government sponsored programs that perpetuate or exacerbate economic inequality, damage the environment, and strip people of basic human rights.

The formal definition if socialism as understood in it’s historical context simply is not operative in this discussion IMO.

[CousinIT]

41. DEMOCRATIC socialism is different than straight socialism

Bernie is a Democratic socialist. So is AOC. Trump and his cult want America to believe he's a straight-up socialist. But he's not. He's a Democratic socialist. What's the big diff? Well...
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-socialism-and-democratic-socialism/

[SidDithers]

43. "my definition of socialism"...

LOL.

When real, accepted definitions are inconvenient, make up your own definitions.

Oh, and Denmark etc aren’t socialist countries, they’re social democracies.

One would hope a Presidential candidate would know and understand the difference.

Sid

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

45. Exactly.

When the truth is inconvenient, just make shit up.

[Zolorp]

54. The phrase is "when you're explaining, you're losing"

Great old adage about politics.

[TexasTowelie]

47. Denmark also has a much higher rate of people that are employed than in the U.S.

Last edited Fri Feb 7, 2020, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Overall, 78% of adults are employed in Denmark compared to 63% of the workforce in the United States. Female participation in the workforce is also much higher than in the U.S. The fact that a higher percentage of people are employed allows Denmark to build a stronger social safety net.

So there is a trade-off involved with having a stronger social safety net--it means that females are forced to stay employed to maintain their standard of living rather than staying at home raising children. Yes, we could adopt the Nordic model and make improvements in the United States regarding child care; however, I still believe that children are better off being raised with at least one of the parents at home rather than being placed in child care centers.

When we think of the detrimental effects of higher tax rates on families is that an ideal that the U.S. should shoot for? Do we want children to spend their early formative years with their parents or do we place more children into pre-K programs funded by taxes? Are we willing to accept lower birth rates as adults can no longer afford to have children? In the long term, how do we fund retirement programs when the ratio of employed adults to retired adults decreases? Will the retirement age have to be raised to keep the ratio of employed adults to retired adults at a satisfactory level of funding?

I don't have the answers to the questions that I posed in the preceding paragraph. However, it appears that we are trading a lot of our freedom in order to achieve the utopian democratic socialistic society that Bemie envisions.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

59. Men can also be the ones to stay home to raise children, by the way.

Scandinavian daycare is a lot different from ours. Kids don't just get dropped off someplace where they are handed a few toys and parked in front of the TV. Instead, they play outside in almost all weather and learn to get along with other kids, which is the main point. People don't have to send their kids - but almost all kids go and the parents and kids really, really like it. https://69north.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/what-is-a-barnehage/

[TexasTowelie]

95. I was not intending to be sexist with my remarks and one of my close friends

was the stay-at-home father after his wife had their first child. Although I should have provided more clarity, it was meant to emphasize that women in the Nordic model had to relinquish some of their time as a parent to return to the workforce. I know plenty of mothers that are successful as both parents and as professionals. Unfortunately, I also know a few mothers who weren't as successful in dual roles and they ended up raising children that were nightmares.

I am aware of the differences in daycare in Scandinavian countries compared to the U.S. and that the children are more engaged in learning activities and social interaction. What you mentioned about the children learning how to get along with others is also a valuable asset, but I have to wonder at what age that should begin. I remember almost nothing from my childhood when I was four years old so I don't know how well a child will retain anything they learn at that age, but I am able to remember much more when I was five. I guess that is why I have an adverse reaction to taking children into pre-K programs and that being around at least one of the parents is more important at such a young age.

Overall, I am my concern about the Nordic model is that it does affect parents since the rewards of labor are transferred from providing for the family to providing funding to the government because of the higher tax rates. I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a parent would feel coerced to return to the labor market because of financial considerations rather than spending time with their children in the formative years. I know that some parents in this country are already forced to make that decision, but in a sense I also feel it is a loss of freedom that is a consequence of paying more taxes. It changes the playing field from people having incentives to work to people being required to work to provide for the social programs which I feel is oppressive.

[SunSeeker]

63. A strong safety net is not socialism; it's the regulation needed to make capitalism livable.

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Bernie's answer was simply wrong. The Scandinavian countries are free market economies with excellent safety nets, that is all.

[TexasTowelie]

111. I agree that Bernie was wrong about socialism.

My concern is about the loss of freedom that people will experience in order to fund the stronger safety net. The difference in participation rates in the labor markets in the Nordic model indicates that more people are influenced to participate in order to maintain their standard of living. That means more families have to rely on two incomes which detracts from the quality of family life.

The question in my mind is which provides more incentive to learn and benefit society--working to provide for one's family or working to provide for one's government? Since I've been a government employee, I lean towards the former over the latter.

[SunSeeker]

113. Having a better safety net enhances freedom. nt

[TexasTowelie]

114. I tend to believe that it depends on the specific programs and their cost.

If the cost of the programs are too expensive then it influences other factors such as what I mentioned about the participation rate of women in the labor force and whether young adults are able to further their educations.

Some young adults manage to squeeze out an associates or bachelors degree over a longer period of time by working part-time jobs. If they have a higher tax burden, then they might have to work full-time rather than part-time or the circumstances in their family may mean that it is not financially feasible to get a college education.

While I was in college, my father was forced to take early retirement and my older brother became unemployed. Those events changed my focus during the last two years in college and I had to increase the number of hours on my first part-time job and take on a second part-time job. I ended up facing a more difficult courseload with advanced level classes while simultaneously working more hours, so naturally my grades declined and I didn't retain as much knowledge from those courses. While my professors wanted me to enroll in a masters program, I was simply burnt out from the demands that were placed upon me regarding my finances and my education. I managed to finish college to get a bachelors degree, but I came close to having a nervous breakdown. I'm not certain that I would have made it if a larger percentage of the income that my father or I were making had gone to the government instead of into the family budget.

[Zolorp]

53. Idiot media needs to ask him about his affiliation with the Communists from 1977-1984

[SunSeeker]

62. You can bet the GOP will bring that up if he gets the nomination.

But right now the GOP and idiot media is being nice to Bernie. The GOP want him to get the nomination.

[Scurrilous]

64. I think the communist stuff started when he left the kibbutz in '63.

It was Stalinist. They would try to recruit you. One of the groups leaders got popped.


Accused Spy’s Bail Set at 20,000 Pounds; Mapam Expresses Support

<snip>

"The Haifa District Court today set bail for Aharon Cohen, Mapam leader and Arab expert who is charged with espionage in behalf of a “foreign state,” at 20,000 pounds. It was stressed that Mr. Cohen, who faces a 15-year prison term if convicted, is suffering from a heart ailment.

Meanwhile, the Mapam Party, in a statement by Meir Yaari, one of its leaders, expressed confidence that Mr. Cohen was “not a spy and not a traitor to Zionism.” Mr. Yaari’s statement to newsmen declared that though the Mapam Party did not wish to interfere with the government’s investigation of Mr. Cohen, who yesterday was formally charged with handing over secret information to an agent of a “foreign power,” it felt that on the basis of the information made available to the party there is insufficient proof that Mr. Cohen had committed the alleged crimes. “The party will continue to defend him unless more proof is established,” Mr. Yaari stated.

The charges made public yesterday against Mr. Cohen specified that between April and August of this year he had met and passed on information to a foreign agent at or in the vicinity of his home kibbutz, Shaar Haamakim."

https://www.jta.org/1958/11/14/archive/accused-spys-bail-set-at-20000-pounds-mapam-expresses-support

It was Russia.


Sha'ar HaAmakim

'Bernie Sanders, who later became a U.S. Senator, worked at the kibbutz for several months in 1963.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sha%27ar_HaAmakim


I'm not buying this. I've seen more detailed post it notes.

[Zolorp]

75. I'm talking about his affiliation with US Trotskyist Communists.

He was on the statewide Vermont ballot under their ticket as an elector in 1980 and endorsed their presidential candidate again in 1984. He began that affiliation in 1977.

[Scurrilous]

80. Yup.

I saw the letter they sent him thanking him for his support and how they read his words at the start of their convention and would stop by his office for a visit. Not too obvious. He pulled that shit for years..

[Zolorp]

82. I know many Democrats my age who will never vote for him over that

They are like me and served in the armed services during the cold war. They simply cannot vote for a former Communist, will not even consider. They despise Trump but Trump was never a Communist that anybody knows of.

There's an old adage in politics, if you give the people a choice between a Communist and a Fascist, they will choose the Gas its every time. If Sanders is the nominee, this will be Nixon v. McGovern on steroids.

[Scurrilous]

89. Nixon/McGovern came about because Muskie was ratfucked by Nixon with help from the media.

The front runner was taken out, McGovern got the nomination and we got fucked. Bernie is the new McGovern. He was traipsing around the Stalinist kibbutz trilling the Internationale while his Russian buddies were supplying weapons to Vietnam where 120 US soldiers were killed that year, Fuck that guy. Sideways.

[Zolorp]

92. He was an elector candidate for a Trotskyist idiot who aided with Iran during the hostage crisis

He sided with the Russians when I joined the army to protect us from the Russians and to go to war with Iran if necessary.

[Scurrilous]

98. He always sided with the Russians. Ortega. And Fidel. But he hates Democrats. He said JFK puke.

I heard the term applied to something else, but I use it for him. Electoral Malice. That's him. That's what we have.

Inspirational Leader:

Ber Borochov

'Borochov, for years an advocate for a doctrinaire Marxist Zionism, himself seemed to repudiate his former vision of class struggle in Palestine in speeches towards the end of his life. Borochov insisted that he was a Social Democrat, but Borochov's Left Poale Zion followers continued to vigorously advocate class struggle both in Palestine and eastern Europe, supporting the February Revolution of 1917.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ber_Borochov

Bernie stole the name. This guy had it 100 yrs. ago.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

109. "How was I to know he was with the Russians too?"

[Malmsy]

55. He is the best person to send the progressive message to those who want progressive policies

but don't know it yet.

[Laelth]

58. There is no "right" answer to the "socialist" question.

Elizabeth Warren gave the only answer to this question that I can embrace. She said that she was a capitalist through and through. With that I can agree. I consider myself a liberal, and that means that I am a capitalist who wants to save capitalism from its own excesses and insure that the benefits of capitalism are spread evenly and fairly among the population who live under our capitalist system. Socialism, per se, is a failure and unworkable (as history has proven).

-Laelth

[Martin Eden]

60. "and by the way, he'll call any Democrat a socialist."

True that!

[Laelth]

65. Quite true. n/t

-Laelth

[SunSeeker]

66. But it won't stick like it does with Bernie, who himself says he's a socialist.

None of the other candidates claim to be socialists.

[Hav]

99. The difference is, they won't have to lie about Bernie when they make that claim

and they'll have actual footage to prove it.

[lark]

70. Good answer, but think it can be better.

I agree that no matter who the Democratic nominees for office are, they will be called a socialist by drumpf and repugs.

So I agree Bernie gave a decent answer but think it would be a lot stronger and more meaningful to working class folks to say - Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid were labeled "socialist" and fought against tooth and nail by the entire Republican party and that continues to this day. These programs are supported by the vast majority of the people in this country, but Republicans fight to cut and even eliminate them at very opportunity.

I think that answer would work for him and for every Democrat. I really want to see Dems push hard on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, along with Healthcare and Pre-Existing. Repugs are so vulnerable on these and corruption - providing further criminality leaks despite Barr's threats.

But that's just my opinion

[democrattotheend]

88. That's a good point re. SS & Medicare

So was the ACA, even though most of us thought it was too much like Romneycare/Heritage Foundation blueprints.

[lark]

97. Yeah, I agree, but was going for 90% vs 75% approval, lol.

It should be added too.

[SunSeeker]

71. No he didn't. He totally mislead about what socialism is.

A strong safety net is not socialism; it's the regulation needed to make capitalism livable.

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production.

Bernie's answer was simply wrong. The Scandinavian countries are free market economies with excellent safety nets, that is all.

[kydemo]

73. Bernie is the only candidate running who says he's a socialist.

That is why it will only stick to him. Also no other candidates have connections with Fidel Castro and honey mooning in the former Soviet Union.

[MRDAWG]

76. Bernie did not answer the question. He .

talked about Trump, not himself. Bernie talked about Denmark etc.

When Trump super pacts call him a Communist and show pictures of people in prison camps it will affect independent voters. Independents will not vote for someone who is far left.

I consider myself a Socialist. Bernie will not beat Trump. We need Biden or Bloomberg in order to win.

[Scurrilous]

103. His answers are always perfect dontcha know.

Bernie also North Star. Moral Center. Not communist fuck don't you say that alert elitist elitist.

[Rider3]

77. Yes!

[democrattotheend]

84. That's a great answer

I was actually thinking about this the other night - they called Obama a socialist for years, even though many of us on the left thought he wasn't liberal enough on economic issues. They call every Democrat a socialist, so how much does it matter if we nominate someone who actually owns the label instead of running from it?

Still not supporting Bernie in the primaries this year, but the fact that he calls himself a socialist is not the reason.

[Perseus]

87. "And by the way, he will call any Democrat a socialist" -- Bernie Sanders

He is so right, anyone who thinks that any of the candidates is exempt of that is fooling themselves, "socialist" is the favourite key word for repubs, even though they have no clue of what it means, but Bernie is right, anyone who becomes a nominee will be called "socialist".

Great answer by Bernie Sanders, and by the way, they way he answered that question is the way he will treat trump, trump won't know how to comeback from anything Bernie rightly accuses him of.

I know there is a concerted effort in DU to go against Sanders, but I am convinced that he will destroy trump on any debate, Sanders doesn't believe in playing to the crowed, he understands that republicans will never come to the Democratic side, even when they are loosing everything, they are that fanatic.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

94. And in the case of every other candidate, Trump would be lying.

[maxsolomon]

91. A tad long-winded. Murkins can't pay attention that long.

2 sentences, max.

Work on it, Senator.

[blakstoneranger]

96. Bernie is Right About This...

"When Trump was a private businessman -- he was a real estate developer -- he himself received some $800 million in tax breaks and subsidies to build luxury condominiums. That's called socialism for the very, very rich." This is very true, read david cay Johnston's books on trump. He is the biggest welfare baby in the country. Lee Iacoca hated taking gov money and so did Henry Ford, but trump relished in it!

[Hav]

102. He was running away from it and people fall for it

But it seems that Sanders can talk nonsense and mislead about a topic and people still marvel at what a great thinker he is.
I've got no idea why massive tax breaks and rules favoring corporations and the rich are socialism for the rich. That makes no sense because it seems to be anything but socialism. Trump is a socialist because of tax break and taking advantage of loopholes?

[Politicub]

105. He really did. I was waiting to see how he would answer, and it made a lot of sense.

The right (and many democrats, sadly) try to be deceptive by yoking the idea of socialism to communism, and they are two very different concepts.

Sanders' explanation was succinct and understandable. I like how he positioned the response as a way to explain socialism to someone who is skeptical about it.

And in general, I felt both he and Pete had a great night last night. Klobuchar was off her game. I hadn't really seen Deval Patrick until yesterday. He was okay. Seems like a smart, thoughtful person who comes across as presidential. He has a steep hill to climb, though.

[Scurrilous]

106. More peace and light eternal glee spirit fun time happy happy perfect in every way Bernie employee

Link to tweet

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

108. More class warfare from the Sanders-Stein crowd?

[Scurrilous]

110. Yep.

Right on cue. Pete bests them and this begins today. I don't see why they're mad though. Bernie bestowed victory on himself last night. Pretty epic. He says 'I won.' They all say 'Bernie won.' Although he didn't. Full cult any minute now.

[hangaleft]

122. It's unfortunate, but true

The average Joe or Jane on the street isn’t gonna pay attention to explanations like this. To them, it’s “OMG, SOCIALIST!!” And their votes are lost no matter how much you try to explain things to them or educate them.

Bernie has no chance of beating Trump. None. A self-described socialist, Democratic or otherwise, is not going to get elected President of the United States in 2020. The country simply is not ready for a candidate bearing that “radical” label.

I say this as a far left individual. I’d *love* to see a far left president in the WH. But I’m pragmatic and KNOW that nominating Bernie would be 1972 all over.

[Gothmog]

123. AMJOYsanders would lose Florida due to socialism

Link to tweet