Obama and Bernie Sanders?

[Gan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIlIpOkRh2A

Heard about this piece on the radio today.

Who is Bernie Sanders and what if anything can be said for Barack's endorsement of Bernie?

[Back]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBnKh6B2cMw

http://sanders.senate.gov/

[Kembal]

Bernie Sanders is an Independent Senator from Vermont that caucuses with the Democrats. He's considered pretty left. Used to be Vermont's congressman. Probably the most popular politician in the state after Howard Dean.

I wouldn't put anything to Obama's endorsement of Sanders, honestly.

[Gan]

Yes, I went to Wikipedia and looked up Sanders, since nobody chose to offer up that as a source.



Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism), but because he does not belong to a formal political party he appears as an independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_%28politician%29) on the ballot. Sanders caucuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_caucus) with the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29) and is counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments. He was the only independent member of the House during much of his service there and is one of two independent Senators in the 110th Congress, along with Joe Lieberman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman). Sanders is the first self-described socialist to be elected to the U.S. Senate.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#cite_note-firstsocsen-0) Sanders left the House in order to run in the 2006 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_United_States_Senate_election%2C_2006) for the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Jim Jeffords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jeffords) and won the election with 65% of the vote.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#cite_note-CNNresults-1)

Ok, so the wiki article is calling Sanders a self described socialist. DAMN THAT BIASED WIKIPEDIA!!! So lets see what the references are that attribute Sanders to being a socialist.



Another political milestone was passed in Vermont, where an independent candidate, Bernie Sanders, became the first self-proclaimed socialist to win a seat in the US Senate. "Sanders will be a new populist voice in the Senate," said Robert Borosage, the head of the Institute for America's Future, a progressive advocacy group.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/08/topstories3.midterms2006

So does this mean that Obama endorses a socialist? Then by proxy does Obama endorse socialism?

[TheEschaton]

Socialism, despite the biases you have, is not inherently a bad thing.

[Gan]

LOL

OK.

[Kefka]

This won't hurt Obama. Democrats and Independents love Bernie. Now if it was Lieberman's endorsement... :(

[BigWorm]

Socialism, despite the biases you have, is not inherently a bad thing.

Good luck with that argument. Most middle-class Americans have been indoctrinated to thank that socialism = communism = evil. Just don't ask them to explain why in any coherent manner, because most people don't know nearly enough about any political system other than America's to compare them.

This is not to say that Gan is one of those people. For all I know, he could be an well-informed anarcho-capitalist, which gets my vote for awesomest sounding political philosophy.

[Parkbandit]

Socialism, despite the biases you have, is not inherently a bad thing.

It works? Really? Where does it actually work (and for clarification sake, I'm asking about the real world here.. not a fantasy island)

[Gan]

Socialism refers to group of ideologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology) and political movements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement) with the goal of a socio-economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic) system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-0) This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_councils)—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system), socialism is often characterized by state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State), worker, or community ownership of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production), goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties) and governments throughout history.

With spokespersons such as Hugo Chavez... No thanks.

Is there one example of the socialist experiment on a state level that has succeeded in the premise of 'being for the people'?

If you say India I'm going to laugh.

[BigWorm]

Is there one example of the socialist experiment on a state level that has

Most of the Scandinavian countries and Britain for starters.

[Keller]

It works? Really? Where does it actually work (and for clarification sake, I'm asking about the real world here.. not a fantasy island)

All of Europe.

[Keller]

Most of the Scandinavian countries and Britain for starters.

I think Germany is the only Western European country that doesn't have a significant socialist presence, both in legislation and congress/parliaments.

[BigWorm]

All of Europe.

Way to open the floodgates.

Which member of the R team will be the first to post:

ROFL LOL

If luv Europe so much, go live there.

[Parkbandit]

Most of the Scandinavian countries and Britain for starters.

They are all capitalist societies. Do you actually know what socialism is? Essentially, it is putting ALL the money in one big pot, and distributing it to EVERY citizen equally.

Again.. name one country where socialism actually works. There is no rich, there is no poor. Mr. Jones has the same amount of wealth Mr. Smith has.

[Parkbandit]

Way to open the floodgates.

Which member of the R team will be the first to post:

ROFL LOL

If luv Europe so much, go live there.


Which one of the D team can't read a simple definition of what socialism is.

Oh wait.. that was you.

[BigWorm]

I think Germany is the only Western European country that doesn't have a significant socialist presence, both in legislation and congress/parliaments.

I only mentioned the obvious successes. It is hard to argue that Scandinavian socialism hasn't done well. By mentioning all the European countries, you can expect to be strawmanned by some lame nitpicker.

[BigWorm]

Good luck with that argument. Most middle-class Americans have been indoctrinated to thank that socialism = communism = evil. Just don't ask them to explain why in any coherent manner, because most people don't know nearly enough about any political system other than America's to compare them.

This is not to say that Gan is one of those people. For all I know, he could be an well-informed anarcho-capitalist, which gets my vote for awesomest sounding political philosophy.


They are all capitalist societies. Do you actually know what socialism is? Essentially, it is putting ALL the money in one big pot, and distributing it to EVERY citizen equally.

Again.. name one country where socialism actually works. There is no rich, there is no poor. Mr. Jones has the same amount of wealth Mr. Smith has.

Um, reading comprehension FTL. Communism != socialism. Thanks for playing though.

Britain, Sweden, and Finland are all social democracies.

[Keller]

Which one of the D team can't read a simple definition of what socialism is.

Oh wait.. that was you.

It is true.

Rabies does degrade grey-matter.

[Parkbandit]

Um, reading comprehension FTL. Communism != socialism. Thanks for playing though.

Britain, Sweden, and Finland are all social democracies.


I would use a better, more reliable source than Bigworm. Just saying.

Here's the definition of socialism from Wikipedia.. in case you missed it. I'll even bold the important part so you don't miss it:

Originally Posted by Wiki
Socialism refers to group of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

If you want to use your loose definition of socialism, you can also include the US in your examples. In a true socialist society, there is no rich, there is no poor. Distribution of wealth is across the board.

And again.. name a country that is a true example of socialism.

[Gan]

Wierd.

CIA factbook lists the two known examples of a socialist country (venezuela and india) as a federal republic.

UK is considered a constitutional monarchy.
Germany is listed as a federal republic.
Sweden = constitutional monarchy.
France = republic.
Italy = republic.
Spain = parlimentary monarchy.
Finland = republic.

[Kembal]

Uh, Gan, that'd be because socialism is an economic theory, not a system of government.

[Kembal]

Anyway, looking at Sanders's self description as a democratic socialist, I think Gan and PB are overstating the case here.

There are two subsets of Socialism called democratic socialism and social democracy. Democratic socialism usually calls for the abolishment of capitalism via democracy, and that workers, through democracy, will govern the ownership of capital. Social democracy calls for signficant regulation of government. I'll copy what Wikipedia defines it as:


...social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of state sponsored programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices purportedly inflicted by the capitalist market system.

The term democratic socialist can be used interchangably for a believer in democratic socialism or social democracy.

Looking at the record of his votes in the House from his wikipedia page that PB provided, I'd have to say he's probably a social democrat in actuality.

[BigWorm]

property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.
is different than

ALL the money in one big pot, and distributing it to EVERY citizen equally.

If Britain isn't socialist, then why do you always use it as an example of how socialized healthcare would be bad for America.

Most of Europe is influenced by policy and leaders that would self-identify as socialist. Just like America isn't 100% capitalist, not all of these countries are 100% socialist, but it would be fair to label them as socialist countries. Asking me to name a successful pure socialist country would be as difficult as asking you to name a successful pure capitalist society, because there is no such thing.


Uh, Gan, that'd be because socialism is an economic theory, not a system of government.

Exactly. But many Americans, especially those that grew up during the height of the Cold War, don't understand the differences.

When Bernie Sanders says that he's a socialist, he means that he supports many social programs such as a national healthcare program, not that he wants to march everyone to a gulag.

[Gan]

Uh, Gan, that'd be because socialism is an economic theory, not a system of government.

I'm aware of the economic side. Just was unfamiliar with how its classified within the framework of government.

So does that mean that Cuba is communist in government and socialistic economically?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think the only one I'd be happy to be a part of is Sweden.

The following is a list of such countries with reasons for including them. Keep in mind that this information is as of 2006, some countries may eventually need to be added or removed from the list.

Cuba: Cuba is one of the most Socialist nations, as it has a mostly state-run economy, universal healthcare, government-paid education (http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1399/education.html) at all levels, and a number of of social programs. It does not have a stock exchange.

North Korea: The same is true of North Korea, which has an almost entirely state-run economy, as well as the same social programs mentioned for Cuba. Like Cuba, North Korea does not have a stock exchange.

Venezuela: Economy has more private ownership, but the government social programs are quite extensive and the foreign policy is very left-wing. Cuban doctors and teachers have been brought to Venezuela to provide some medical and educational services.

China: A substantial part of the economy is still state-run, although there are not as many social programs as there once were and universal healthcare has been eliminated. Still has a Socialist-type foreign policy, for the most part.

Vietnam: A significant part of the economy is state-run. Close ties with Cuba, Venezuela, and Belarus.

Syria: Although not commonly referred to as Socialist in the West, Syria has a mostly state-run economy and universal healthcare, along with a left-wing foreign policy.

Belarus: Much of the Belarussian economy is state-run and some govt. social programs are available. Belarus has close ties with Venezuela, China, and other Socialist countries.

Sweden: Mostly private industry, but many well-funded govt. social programs are offered. Universal healthcare and government-provided education (http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1399/education.html) at all levels is made available.

[BigWorm]

Sweden: Mostly private industry, but many well-funded govt. social programs are offered. Universal healthcare and government-provided education (http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1399/education.html) at all levels is made available.

This is what we mean by a modern socialist country.

Socialism does not have to come hand in hand with totalarianism, but in most of the other examples that is the case. I wouldn't support any socialist country that didn't also allow free and open elections.

[Gan]

Whats the tax rate in Sweden again?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Whats the tax rate in Sweden again?

Oh it's not too bad.

The top income tax rate is 60 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 28 percent. Other taxes include a value-added tax (VAT) and a capital gains tax. In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 51.1 percent.

:rofl:

[Gan]

http://www.southplainfieldnj.com/SeniorCenter/Taxes.1.jpg

[Warriorbird]

You supported a largely nationalist President, Gan. Socialism and nationalism aren't too far off from either party.

[Gan]

I did. He was the lesser of 2 evils at the time, both times.

[Kembal]

I'm aware of the economic side. Just was unfamiliar with how its classified within the framework of government.

So does that mean that Cuba is communist in government and socialistic economically?

Debateable. Communism requires a specific form of autocratic government, but it's primarily an economic theory.

[TheEschaton]

Those countries that you listed as "socialist" aren't bad countries because they're socialist, but because they're run by autocratic gov'ts. Socialism (and even communism) are economic theories, and, just like capitalism, can be corrupted by political structures.

As you could see from every failed "socialist" state, you'll find a failed dictatorship.

India, the Scandanavian countries, many elements of European countries have socialist economic theories. They run under republican/democratic ideals, or constitutional monarchies where the monarch has little to no power.

Meanwhile, you could see many examples of failed capitalist states, corrupted mainly not because of the economic theory itself, but the autocratic nature of the people running them - I'd point to most of Eastern Europe, and African nations which've gained independence after the West won the Cold War, which lead to cronyism and backdoor deals.

-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Good info here btw, fascinating to me anyway.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

[Gan]

I think so, yes.

There's another high mark for socialism.

[Warriorbird]

While I'm not a particular fan of either socialism or nationalism I can understand the attraction for politicians. Franklin Roosevelt's socialism helped restore American confidence during the Great Depression. Reagan's nationalism helped topple Communism (despite shafting his successor economically). This is just Obama supporting somebody who's basically a Democrat... like McCain supporting Lieberman who's basically a Republican.

[TheEschaton]

I'm sorry, pointing to the Heritage Foundation as good information is like me pointing to ThinkProgress for good information. ;)

-TheE-

[Gan]

Those countries that you listed as "socialist" aren't bad countries because they're socialist, but because they're run by autocratic gov'ts. Socialism (and even communism) are economic theories, and, just like capitalism, can be corrupted by political structures.

As you could see from every failed "socialist" state, you'll find a failed dictatorship.

India, the Scandanavian countries, many elements of European countries have socialist economic theories. They run under republican/democratic ideals, or constitutional monarchies where the monarch has little to no power.

Meanwhile, you could see many examples of failed capitalist states, corrupted mainly not because of the economic theory itself, but the autocratic nature of the people running them - I'd point to most of Eastern Europe, and African nations which've gained independence after the West won the Cold War, which lead to cronyism and backdoor deals.

-TheE-

There's an excellent article in either last week's The Economist or the week's before issue thats called "The Rule of Law".

It deals some of what you're attempting to explain.

I'll try to post it here when I have a chance to log onto the website and pull it.

[Warriorbird]

<3 The Economist.

[Gan]

One of the best magazine subscriptions I've ever purchased.

[Parkbandit]

While I'm not a particular fan of either socialism or nationalism I can understand the attraction for politicians. Franklin Roosevelt's socialism helped restore American confidence during the Great Depression. Reagan's nationalism helped topple Communism (despite shafting his successor economically). This is just Obama supporting somebody who's basically a Democrat... like McCain supporting Lieberman who's basically a Republican.

Many would actually argue that Roosevelt's socialism put the Great in the Great Depression by extending it several years.

Although, I don't think Obama supporting this wacko from Vermont will amount to anything. Hell, the Democratic party should be renamed to the Socialist party... it would be far more accurate.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry, pointing to the Heritage Foundation as good information is like me pointing to ThinkProgress for good information. ;)

-TheE-

Normally, I would agree with you.. but if you actually look at the data in the link.. it breaks it down by country. Then clicking on the country shows you how that information was gathered and calculated. Since this information is there.. why not question the information instead of the source in this case?

[TheEschaton]

Well, then, I will. The scale itself is a "scale of economic freedom" for individuals. Socialism isn't based on economic freedom, but the idea of "common good". The measurement is therefore skewed towards capitalist countries as more "economically free."

If the scale was about "legal freedoms", or whatever, I'd think it'd be more interesting data. And I think you'd find democracies on top, dictatorships on the bottom, and quite the mix between capitalist/socialist countries.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Unless, of course, your argument is that "economic freedom" is inextricably entwined with legal freedom.

[Gan]

Debateable. Communism requires a specific form of autocratic government, but it's primarily an economic theory.


Well, then, I will. The scale itself is a "scale of economic freedom" for individuals. Socialism isn't based on economic freedom, but the idea of "common good". The measurement is therefore skewed towards capitalist countries as more "economically free."

If the scale was about "legal freedoms", or whatever, I'd think it'd be more interesting data. And I think you'd find democracies on top, dictatorships on the bottom, and quite the mix between capitalist/socialist countries.

-TheE-

:wtf:

You guys need to communicate better.

[TheEschaton]

Communism != Socialism.

[Gan]

So is socialism a style of government or a style of economic theory?

[Gan]

And how do you explain Cuba again?

[Clove]

Technically communism can be directed by a full democracy. It's rare and I don't know of any large, real-life examples. The only real examples I'm aware of is some kibbutz's where everything is owned collectively but the rules of the kibbutz and use of its assets are directed by popular vote of the kibbutz members. I think it would be hilarious to see it tried on a national scale.

[Kembal]

So is socialism a style of government or a style of economic theory?

Style of economic theory. That's definitive.

And Clove's right...in theory, a communist government could work democratically, but it breaks down in practice on the nation-state level. Hence my statement that it requires a certain form of autocratic government to work. Otherwise, it is primarily an economic theory.

[TheEschaton]

Cuba is a communist dictatorship.

[Apathy]

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f138/pythonorbit/michael%20palin/holy%20grail/dennis.jpg

I told you. We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,……but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting……by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,……but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major–

[Latrinsorm]

Do you actually know what socialism is? Essentially, it is putting ALL the money in one big pot, and distributing it to EVERY citizen equally.
Many would actually argue that Roosevelt's socialism put the Great in the Great Depression by extending it several years.
I'm asking about the real world here.. not a fantasy islandIRONY.

[Stanley Burrell]

LotR invokes Godwin.


IRONY.

::taps mana reserves::

http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/media/kossel-pics/Fe.jpg

It's Saturday.

[Parkbandit]

IRONY.


Explain.

Better yet.. don't bother. Most just skip over your nonsense anyway. This was probably one of the few posts of yours I bothered reading. It made no sense, but it wasn't painful to read and try and decipher.