There are a lot of assumptions underlying your conclusion it is irrational to believe lower taxes are better. You can disagree with these people, but you cannot claim someone holding that position is irrational. — Benkei

Yes, you can.

When you say "believe lower taxes are better," you're being imprecise. "Better" is meaningless without a context. Better for whom and for what?

If all the evidence shows that lowing taxes will help you and your community, and you give this proper priority, then to vote against lowering taxes is irrational. Why you made this irrational choice is interesting and what we're trying to figure out. It does not make you stupid, but it does mean you made a choice against your stated interests and hence an irrational one. That usually means: a choice based on emotion, whim, feelings, or ignorance. By "ignorance" in this case I mean simply being uninformed. That's often not the "fault"of the person making the choice. People vote for religious reasons based on the Bible, they vote one way because their family does so or their friends are doing it, or because they have been indoctrinated in some fashion.

There are all kinds of reasons and causes that explain why an irrational choice was made. But let's start by agreeing that there is such a thing. By your argument, there isn't.

This means voters do not vote against their interest, but that they prioritise their interests and vote accordingly. What you do is project your own priorities on them and then don't understand their voting behaviour (how can they not see that lower taxes and no universal healthcare is bad for them!). Answer: they don't think it's as important as wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It's not ignorant, stupid or irrational to do so. — Benkei

If someone voted, hypothetically, for a man who stated he would most likely use nuclear weapons and did so because he was pro-choice, would that be rational? After all, it's that person's priorities. They like chocolate, I like vanilla. It's a wash. Both just as rational.

Nonsense.

If people vote on single issues then a two-party system will inevatibly cause them to vote against some of their interests because two parties can never align their policies in such a way as to cater to a majority of individual interests. Only a multi-party system would be able to do that. — Benkei

By voting for Clinton, there were plenty of interests not included in her proposals. I had to hold my nose. It's quite true that the two-party system is a joke, and I don't think anyone would argue against that.

So don't blame the voters, blame the system. — Benkei

"Blame" is the wrong word to use, so I retract that. But even when using the word, my emphasis has been exactly the opposite: I don't "blame" voters at all. In fact, I'm interested in why they make irrational choices. Do I say "You people are stupid"? No, I don't say that. It is indeed the "system" but also the media. Education plays a role as well, of course.

Obviously, if you are more community-minded and think social justice is very important, it looks like Trump voters voted against their own interests. And they did by that specific standard but it would be wrong to think they voted irrationally. They still voted in favour of other personal interests. — Benkei

They precisely did vote irrationally. They vote against their interests (irrationally) when one person's policies would have had an empirically demonstrable positive effect on your community and the other exactly the opposite, yet you vote for him or her anyway. I'm talking about specific communities, but the argument can be made nationally as well.

If you can't see why, when given a choice -- even if it's a choice between two things you don't like -- you choose not the least damaging to yourself and your country, but for the more damaging candidate, I don't know what to say exactly. Sounds like you're arguing that electing Donald Trump was a rational choice. The rational choice was Clinton. This is apart from party loyalty. Any rational observer, if they are rational, would have chosen Clinton as she was the least damaging. This shouldn't even be controversial. To paint the picture that people just have different priorities and opinions and it's all a wash and all rational is weak indeed. This isn't about party bias. It's a factual claim. If you need to have that discussion I'm happy to, but it should be taken for granted.

The real question is simply why people do that. It's not because they're stupid -- there are other factors involved. Again, see Manufacturing Consent and Strangers in Their Own Land. Very interesting indeed. To argue the electorate, or the "market" for that matter, consists of informed people making rational choices is simply incorrect.

So in the end your saying voters are voters are voting against their interests and say about the reasons that "most of it is complete nonsense". Couldn't be more condescending, because I assume you don't think that you yourself are voting like this. — ssu

Most of the social issues are fabricated nonsense, yes. I don't blame the people necessarily, I place a greater amount of blame, as I stated, on the media, which have conditioned them to care about this nonsense. They do it on the left, too, all the time. This isn't a left/right thing.

That may look like voting against your own interests to some, but that's because they are projecting their own "big issues" on those that voted differently. — Benkei

That's not true. As I said above, this is coming from the voters themselves. First, most know they have little choice, and are forced into choosing between two people they don't even like and who have very little connection to their lives or needs. Second, if they vote anyway, they vote for irrational reasons -- guns, immigration, abortion, etc. You can claim, of course, that this is in fact rational and simply reflects a different set of priorities as mine, but when you factor in the influence of media and polling trends it's hard to believe. While I'm sure people care about guns and abortion and immigration, the fact that they care at all -- and especially the importance they place on them -- is largely shaped by propaganda. That goes for the "left" as well. There's plenty of documentation about this; shaping public opinion is a big business.

Set some time aside to read the comments on the Trump Facebook page. They believe anything they want to believe. Anything. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Of course. But given that's true, how can we possibly point to Russian misinformation specifically as the cause, or significant factor in, Trump's getting elected? Given other voting patterns, it doesn't seem likely.

Every popular movement will always say they represent the "true people" who have been silenced / forgotten and they themselves know these real people. Where it becomes extremely annoying and quite condescending is when some have the view that some people are "wrong" in their views, so wrong that they "vote against their real interests". Really? they are just so stupid or what? And the person saying this isn't??? — ssu

Not every popular movement says that, and certainly not Bernie's. What's said is that the majority of Americans support various policies -- 90% or so want universal background checks on guns, nearly 70% want either universal healthcare or a public option, etc. To point out that there's many people in this country with a lot of different interests and needs isn't saying anything at all. It's obvious and almost childish to point out.

I'm also not saying people are voting against their "real" interests. You added that. Try listening to other people without projecting -- you learn a lot more.

People do indeed vote against their interests. Not their "real" interests in the sense you mean -- like I know what their "real" interests are and they stupidly vote against them. They themselves acknowledge they would benefit from certain policies, like extending medicare, but vote for politicians that refuse to implement such policies. That's voting against one's interests. And they have their reasons, too: they're willing to stomach a candidate they don't even like for other reasons. What are these "other reasons"? Usually social issues like abortion, guns, immigration, religion, anti-liberalism, being anti-"elites," etc. This is what is seen when you talk to people, and it shows up in the polls as well. Most of it is complete nonsense, yet they vote on the basis of it.

So the question then becomes: why do they care so much about these particular issues that they're willing to vote for someone they dislike and who in many other ways are against their interests?

That's exactly where the media come in. When it's beaten into your head for 30 years that immigrants are destroying the country, that liberals want to secularize everything and take God and prayer out of schools, that the government is trying to disarm us gradually so we can't defend ourselves when they come for us, etc. Then yes, it's easy to see why people vote against their interests.

The control and manipulation of information is the biggest factor in why people actively vote against their interests as working and middle-class people, in this country...
— Xtrix

The only choices available were all against their interests.... Not sure if that can be attested to control and manipulation of information or just plain ole untrustworthy insincere political leadership. — creativesoul

That's a good point. Remember too that the biggest voting bloc in the US is "non-voters." I think this is precisely for the reason you mentioned: no real choice. The two party system in this country is odd -- we don't even have a labor party, which is common in the others. It's two factions of the business class, and has been for a long time.

But I was talking mostly about those who DO still care and still vote. In that case, propaganda is very important. But it does indeed apply even to keeping a two-party system in tact. The media paints a picture of "left" and "right," especially on social issues, but never operates on the assumption that this system is strange and never reflects the needs and interests of the majority of Americans.

This is another reason why Bernie is different. Although running in the democratic party, he's sui genesis different than others and is running a campaign unlike any other in 100 years just based on fundraising alone.

I have several Chomsky books. He's prone to take things a bit farther than I.

I think that there's less of a huge goal based conspiracy of uber wealthy people calling all the shots and more small shots being called over a long time period — creativesoul

Maybe, but Chomsky never argues for conspiracies. That's a very common misunderstanding. It's not what I'm saying either.

Who is this hapless demographic that gets duped by Facebook/social media content and ads? Are there really people that look at this and go "Ah, that's gotta be true because I saw it on Facebook!". — schopenhauer1

I doubt it. It doesn't seem like it has much effect, and if it does it's in ways that really aren't measurable. I never questioned whether Russia interfered, for example, but really never bought the narrative that the interference helped Trump in any way.

A well informed electorate is imperative to any and all free and fair elections, particularly when we're talking about a representative republic with democratic traditions.

Knowingly misleading the public is fraud of the very worst kind, especially if the public trusts that what you say is both believed by you and true.

That's why. — creativesoul

This is excellent. The control and manipulation of information is the biggest factor in why people actively vote against their interests as working and middle-class people, in this country. We don't have a gun pointed at our heads or live under the threat of being imprisoned for what we say. There's almost "too much freedom," so those in power have to care about what people think and believe, and use the media (which they own) as a tool to shape (or 'manufacture') the public's opinions.

Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" argued this years ago, back in 1988. It's just as relevant now, although the difference being the rise of the Internet. Although it can do a lot of good, it's also been hugely destructive in the sense of spreading misinformation and creating information bubbles. It's also very vulnerable to outside forces, as was seen in the '16 election and Russia's attempts at swinging it.

Well ok then. Been to the supermarket lately? Seen the bounteous harvest in the produce department, the shelves full of all kinds of wondrous goods, the meat and fish sections filled with good stuff to eat? Maybe you'd prefer the stores in Venezuela or the Soviet Union or the aforementioned Cuba. — fishfry

No one is advocating anything like the USSR or Cuba or Venezuela. No one. That's imaginary.

But please, tomorrow as you go through your day, look around at the abundance around you. The bustling commerce, the well-stocked store shelves. Ask yourself if you'd rather live here or in Bernie's Cuba.

LOL. I can't believe you actually said that. Are you joking? You have no idea of the actual, literal wealth of the US -- spread throughout society, though certainly terribly unequal -- relative to the rest of the world? — fishfry

Why you keep invoking Cuba or our supermarkets is beyond me. If you can't see that this is sheer stupidity, maybe it's not worth it talking to you. None of this has to do with my comment, that the wealth in the US has been concentrated to the top, especially the 1% (it's actually closer to 1/10 or 1/100 of 1%).

The wealth of the US is vast. We're the wealthiest country on Earth. So "relative to the rest of the world," that's not an "idea", it's a fact. What's your point?

Stop arguing against imaginary opponents. Outside of your information bubble, they don't exist. If all you know how to do is respond to straw men and imaginary opponents, that's OK. Just let me know so I don't waste my time trying to explain anything.

Yes, we all agree the economy has worked very well for them, and they continue to prosper. The system that's been in place has been a state-capitalist system, rigged for the wealthy who can lobby for legislation, subsidies, contracts, tax breaks, and bailouts from the government (our tax money). Bernie does indeed want to destroy that. I agree with him.
— Xtrix

All those people driving to and from work on the freeway, you want to shut down all that commerce. How many would starve under your plan? Are you insane? You seriously want to shut down the US economy? If you did that, ONLY the 1% would survive. They already have their bunkers. The rest of us working stiffs would be crushed in a depression that would make the 1930's look like the good old days. — fishfry

Who said shutting down commerce? Try reading again what I wrote. Bernie wants to destroy a rigged system that distributes the wealth of this country to the top 1/10th of 1%, and I agree with that. I think such a system which produces such enormous inequality should be dismantled or at least heavily corrected. This is the exact opposite of what you're saying -- it's in FAVOR of the working and middle classes. It has nothing to do with "shutting down the American economy." Nothing. Nor did I ever say that. Nor has Bernie said that. It's a ridiculous statement that, once again, exists only in your imagination.

The middle class MUST pay for such enormous spending programs because the rich have lawyers and the poor have no money. This is very basic. — fishfry

It's very easy to tax wealth. All we need is the political will, which Bernie has. The working and middle classes will not pay for it, the wealthiest Americans and the corporate sector, however, will.

This is very basic.

Because it's the agenda of Donald Trump. It's every policy that's come out of the Trump administration: deregulation, privatization, corporate tax cuts, etc.
— Xtrix

No, I disagree. Trumps policies on trade and immigration go directly against neoliberalism. He hasn't started any new wars and he's trying to get us out of the ones we're in. Of course he's been rolled by the likes of Bolton and other warmongers. It's damned hard to fight the establishment alone. But his big overarching politics are directly opposed to the neoliberal consensus of the past thirty years. — fishfry

That's not true. Neoliberalism has little to do with wars. It has far more to do with increasing the military budget (to line the pockets of defense contractors), which Trump has done. Trump has cut taxes and deregulated everything from environment rules to banking laws. He's in favor of privatizing everything. Almost every policy he's proposed or enacted is exactly in the domain of neoliberal philosophy. It's true Trump doesn't have a clue about what he believes -- he's in it for himself only -- but the policies are clear, and he goes along with it. McConnell has been enacting this agenda while Trump tweets and stirs up controversy. Also, pretty basic. That you deny any of it is "neoliberal' is striking.

So you either don't know what you're talking about, or voted in favor of neoliberalism.
— Xtrix

Trade, immigration, war. — fishfry

He has done nothing on trade except re-named NAFTA and started a stupid trade war with China which changed literally nothing. His proposal of building a wall will go down as one of the stupidest ideas in history. As for war -- yes, he wants to stay out of war.

What does this have to do with the continued tax cuts, deregulation, and cutting of social welfare programs? These are neoliberal policies, and have been enacted over and over again during this administration. You can bury your head in the sand about it if you'd like, but you make yourself look like a fool.

Anyone who sleepwalks through their American life and doesn't see the incredible material abundance all around them is not one to talk about others being confused. — fishfry

You're confused. Sorry for the accuracy. Try to stop arguing against your imagination.

2020, I don't think that's going to happen. But that's what they said about Trump in 2016 and Bernie's 2020 campaign is weirdly parallel. Not being taken seriously then the whole party panicking to stop him and the moderates unwilling to get out of each other's way. The parallels are eerie. Anything could happen. — fishfry

True. And being accurate about what's really happening in the current administration and about Bernie's actual policies is all the more important. I highly recommend making an effort to do so.

I will check it out, thanks.

It is playing into the hands of those who misunderstand socialism. Accepting their definition and using it against them may score some points, but it does seem like a poor long-term choice.

I do think there is such a thing as too far in each of those ways, though; it's just much much farther than anyone would ever consider, because it's obviously unworkable. — Pfhorrest

Well that depends. Maybe it would work in the future, and so as an ideal is not silly -- but practically speaking, wouldn't fly right now-- given our current political, moral, religious, and philosophical state. (And by "our" I mean the United States, complete with its Puritanical and Protestant influences and strong indoctrination system).

On your figure, for example, the "No property or possessions" and "no self-defense" does indeed seem pretty extreme even to me. But perhaps it's not unworkable in the future. I don't think such a system should be considered the ultimate form of liberty and equality, however. An argument can be made in this case, of course.

Absolute maximal liberty would mean nobody had any claims against anyone... including, say, punching you in the face. Slightly to the right of that would allow for self-enforced claims against some limited things like that. The truly centrist position on that would allow for some kind of institutional enforcement of such reasonable claims, a government, without granting it any monopoly on powers that are denies other people, so no state. More to the right of that would be a state of some kind, but limited in some ways. The farthest to the right would be an unlimited state. — Pfhorrest

Here it's useful to define some terms. What's the difference between "government" and "state"? I see them as essentially the same thing, although reserving "state" (or even government) for the Federal government isn't unreasonable.

I don't mind violence and hierarchy, provided the use of violence can be justified and the structure of authority legitimated.

Bernie is like... 12.5% right of true center, on that scale. But that in turn is about 25% left of center in the limited-state-and-capitalism that has moderate Democrats at its center. And that in turn is like 50% further left of far left on the parochial scale American media pundits seem to think in, by which those moderate Democrats are "far left". — Pfhorrest

Exactly, and I think it's especially important that people like you and I don't get sucked into the belief that Sanders is even all that "left" or all that radical, especially if you're a student of history and knowledgeable of countries outside the US. Rather, it's worth keeping in mind that although it's exciting that Bernie is breaking through and transforming the party and the national dialogue, he's still not all that radical or even all that "socialist" -- so it's good to talk about it in the midst of media bombardment, general naysaying, and general ignorance.

On the first issue of whether Bernie's use of the term socialism is politically expedient, I'm ambivalent about it. Republicans would call him "socialist" anyway, they would call any policies like his "socialist", and because they control the propaganda machine, that's what increasingly many Americans think "socialism" is, and increasingly think is actually a good thing not a bad thing. So it seems like just pragmatic identification with the label people use to mean what he is for, to me. It does come with a bunch of pejorative baggage, but since the label would be applied to him anyway, I don't really see the harm (and maybe even some benefit) in owning the word. Reclaiming it if you will. "We're here, we're 'socialist', get used to it." — Pfhorrest

Sure. A part of me is with you (and Wolff) in de-stigmatizing the word and not being so afraid of giving the "other side" ammunition. On the other hand, I wonder if it truly is "socialism" at all. Bernie doesn't talk about completely eradicating the basis of our state-capitalist system, i.e., private ownership and profit. It's true he rails against neoliberalism and its policies, but if he's truly just a New Dealer like FDR was, then he's advocating a return to policies which only tweaked the system to work a little better for the middle and working classes. It didn't abolish it altogether, as socialist philosophy -- in many variations -- actually argues for, in favor of a community and worker-run economy. I think both the State and Capitalism in many ways remains intact with Bernie.

I personally consider even that further-left viewpoint "centrist", in a good way -- there is still further left than that that one could go, but that would be too far left -- but even from that far-widened-to-the-left Overton window I think in, I kinda dislike this attacking of establishment Democrats and "centrists" from the left. I'm a big-tent kind of guy, — Pfhorrest

I see what you mean. Placing people on a continuum is useful for ease of discussion, but it's hard to pin down exactly what it means.

We're discussing, essentially, political philosophy. When it comes down to it, all of this talk is conducted in the context of a philosophy -- by which I mean a system of beliefs and assumptions about basic issues and fundamental questions. This system of beliefs and values shapes how we interpret and interact with the world. It manifests in our opinions in various domains; in the political domain it's especially on display in a striking way: there is now clear fracturing and transformation going on in both parties which has been driven by the support of millions of people who are no longer constricted by the standard dogma and ideology. They all want something different. They're pushing beyond certain artificial limits. So before we determine what the "middle" or "center" is, we have to have an idea of where the boundaries of left and right are.

What is the "left"-most ideology, in other words? Is it captured by whatever it is that defines "socialism"? What about the tenets of anarchism? Communism? Marxism? It's true that most of these labels are scary ones for many Americans but, as you mentioned, this is mostly an emotional response and not based on any real understanding of the history or philosophy of these political systems of beliefs and ideas. Those demographics are changing, as you know, as more Cold War era people are getting older. (I myself wasn't quite old enough to be fully indoctrinated by Cold War propaganda, but even I am reluctant to use the words or label myself that way.)

It's good that this is all changing, but my point is that with this change should come a paradigm shift in a way, which includes re-calibrating the whole "left-center-right" picture with its implied limits.

These limits have been manufactured in the media for years, so it won't be easy. Bernie has crossed and continues to cross these artificial lines, scaring people on the establishment "right" and perplexing those on the establishment "left" precisely because both are in agreement with this underlying picture of things. So they say: How can a socialist be this popular and doing this well? We said the same thing about Trump, too, only replacing "socialist" with "populist" (if you believe his rhetoric) and, more accurately, "narcissist."

So you can answer that question for yourself, but for me I would like to define the "left" as any ideology with the goal of creating a truly democratic society where the government and business are run by communities and workers. In the socialist-anarchist tradition.

I'd like to see Bernie dig up the old line Reagan used against Carter, about whether you're better off now compared to 4 years ago.

I think for those of us not completely deluded by party identity, we recognize that indeed nothing significant has changed for us, that the rich keep getting richer, and that we're still saddled with a ton of debt because we chose (and were encouraged to choose) an education, or a career in a non-profit industry, or simply have a dwelling and raise a family -- none of which was very difficult in prior generations.

This Sanders campaign really is beginning to feel like an important part of history, as a kind of non-violent revolution (or at least referendum and warning) to the worst aspects of un-checked capitalism -- a reaction against neoliberal political philosophy.

The next step will be running an anarchist, if Bernie doesn't get it. Because this economy isn't working and can't be sustained even if it were. It's going to crash, we're already overdo. Maybe it'll be a big one like 2008. And this will mean, after not electing Bernie, that people won't just want FDR style fixes. They'll want to overthrow the entire system.

There is no formal procedure for violating the principle of moral hazard. The Chairman of the Fed and the Secrerary of the Treasury were attempting to avoid a massive economic collapse following the failure of financial services companies.

The banking system was nationalized to thaw a credit freeze.

None of that was socialism for the rich. — frank

There were many conservatives -- including Ann Coulter -- speaking out AGAINST a bailout, who believe exactly that: that it was indeed "socialism" (from their perspective this means essentially "giving taxpayer dollars to") for the financial industry, which triggered the collapse.

So if you don't like that definition of socialism, fine. Then in that case using a comparable amount of taxpayer money to give people healthcare, or wipe out student debt, isn't "socialism"?

The bail-outs were as much "socialism" as anything else. Why a person like you defends taxpayer money (yours and mine) going to tax cuts that mainly favor corporate America and bailouts for Goldman Sachs, white at the same time coming down hard on Bernie Sanders for wanting to spend money on programs that empirically help the working and middle class, is perplexing to me. Do you not count yourself as working or middle class? If you do, you must see what's going on in this country. You're living it.

That's not an argument.

But call Bernie what you want. I’ve already stated his policies reek of the big government, high-tax reforms we’ve been getting for the better part of a century. — NOS4A2

What high tax reforms of the last 50 years, exactly? Since 1970 the trend has been exactly the opposite. The neoliberal era has not favored high taxes, ESPECIALLY not on corporations. So your sense history is strange indeed.

Why would we need another New Deal if the first one was so great? The government’s power was greatly increased and that has not subsided. — NOS4A2

It has. Since the 1970s, as a matter of fact. Remember that the 1960s was a very threatening time for those in favor of maintaining the status quo, and there was a reaction. That reaction -- neoliberalism -- is the era we've been living in since. It's only now starting to crumble. To argue neoliberal policies are anything like the New Deal is absurd. Since Reagan, the mantra has been "getting big government out of our lives," which is a popular thing to say. But the state has remained a large corporate welfare one. That's certainly big government, but not for the people -- it's rigged for big business and the wealthiest Americans, in every sense.

And while it's true we still have social security, look at the proposals of the Republicans like McConnell and even the latest Trump spending budget proposals. They want to cut social security (and medicare). They're coming for "entitlements" to pay for their big tax cuts to the wealthy.

They're giving it all to themselves, right before our eyes, and yet you argue in favor of them. I can't honestly go on talking with you without acknowledging this feeling of perplexity. Do you not count yourself among the working and middle class? You're part of the wealthiest 1%? Do you not believe in classes or the huge gap between the richest people and the vast majority of Americans (including yourself)?

Do you acknowledge the possibility that misinformation and years of propaganda has maybe had an influence on why you believe and say the things you do? What are your news sources? From where do you get your facts and figures -- if any? Who are you listening to? I'm genuinely curious. You don't seem like a crazy person ranting things online.

Has Cold War era thinking had an effect on you? I suspect you're probably in your 50s or 60s, am I wrong?

Not to digress into psychological or personal factors (which is especially difficult online), but it's relevant in this case. Let me remind you, too: I'm not a liberal and not a democrat and not a socialist. That'll be hard for you to believe, I think, but it's true. So things I say are not from a "blue team always right" point of view at all, as you may be used to. Try to look passed that and really listen. Make the attempt to understand my position at least, and at that point we can have a meaningful discussion about whether my position is correct or not. If you can't at mininum get that right, we're just talking different languages.

If there is no socialism in Bernie then why does he call himself a democratic socialist? It boggles the mind. He's either wrong or he's a socialist. So which is it? — NOS4A2

And I would ask : why are you so hung up on labels? Look at the policies and debate those -- the rest is meaningless, including whether he's a socialist. That said, he's a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. That's not socialism in your sense. It's to differentiate from exactly that sense, of "the state owning the means of production." Because the word "socialist" is in there does not make it socialism in your sense. There were "National Socialists" too, remember. Who cares?

Does medicare for all, free college and universities, etc., make sense or not? Let's assume we can pay for them and that it gets through congress and survives challenges at the Supreme Court -- do they make sense? I would argue yes, they do. I think they'd be very good for working and middle class people like myself, like you, and like everyone we know. We've seen the results of the neoliberal period, and it's simply not working or sustainable anymore.

Alright before we begin this discussion I'll just let you know that I would really never vote for Bernie. I'm just interested in the actual contents of his beliefs. From what I know - off the top of my head - he's said favorable things about Castro and the USSR, and he favored nationalizing.... some industry in the 1980s and doing so in a manner without even compensating the leaders of those industries.

Again, not looking for a debate here just an honest picture of what Bernie believes. — BitconnectCarlos

In that case, there's plenty of information available to you. If you're genuinely interested. Saying "favorable things" abut Cuba and the USSR is untrue. He's said favorable things about programs that help the working class and poor -- literacy programs, etc. That's not saying favorable things about the standard American ideas about the governments and leaders of either country.

Bernie essentially wants to nationalize healthcare, yes. That's no secret. There's plenty of debate to be had there.

Social Democrats are totally different from Marxist-(Leninists). They don't want to stop capitalism. Their idea is only to milk it a bit more and have this "socialism-lite". And if you listen to Bernie, that is exactly what he's up to. — ssu

Basically, yes.

That was interesting. There is a lot in there I agree with. But they go much farther than I...I just want a more interested voter (not just interested in having their opinions agreed with). They want everyone to actually engage with their community. I am way too socially uncomfortable for that sort of behavior :grimace: But I can appreciate its usefulness and support those actions when I can. I can admit that I would definitely count as a "hobbyist" based on their description. — ZhouBoTong

And me as well. We're in the same boat, really. I don't go out giving talks or anything. But among friends, family, friends-of-friends, coworkers, and even sometimes strangers, I like having those conversations. Not to mention online. I would like to be more involved in an organization where I actually work with others in pursuit of political goals. The Sunrise Movement and other large, national organizations and movements is interesting and all of that, but I think I'd be more comfortable locally -- and that's kind of the point of the article anyway, in the sense that this is where everything starts.

But you're absolutely right: being interested, informed, and willing to have the conversations with other people in a rational way, are all necessary. Even THAT would be sufficient to change things, too, because in that case we'd be voting very differently. Unfortunately we're being indoctrinated in all kinds of ways, and having our consent "manufactured," to a large degree. How to overcome this is an interesting topic.

What do you make of Krugman's position vs. Wolff's? I'll link below, if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6J3ROV4IPc

Those policies actually fit the technical definition of social democracy (which is not a kind of socialism), not democratic socialism, or any kind of socialism. They have nothing to do with capital being owned by those who use it, they just provide a band-aid over the worst excesses of capitalism. — Pfhorrest

You're on to a much deeper issue, which is that even Bernie's policies don't go far enough. But since Bernie himself is considered so extreme, it's very hard to have that conversation. It's more worthwhile to fight for his policies. But when you say "band-aid," you're exactly right. That's what the New Deal, laws and regualtions of the 60s, etc., were really doing. They rearranged the rules, made the game less tilted, but continue to play the game nonetheless.

The real, long-term and overarching goal should be the destruction of capitalism altogether. I advocate for anarcho-syndicalism pro tem. Then I would argue in the space opened by Nietzsche regarding the distant future. But as you can see, we'd be getting into a more academic and philosophical discussion rather than a political one grounded in the real world of current affairs.

Still, your point is an important one and worth keeping in mind.

Bernie is an avowed socialist. Straight from the horse’s mouth. That was my only point. You don’t have to look at the countless other leaders and states who have claimed the same, but because there is always a trail of death and tyranny behind them should at least be cause for scepticism when someone once again picks up the mantle. I doubt your equivocations would occur if Bernie called himself a fascist, for instance. — NOS4A2

Let's at least be very clear: Bernie is an avowed "Democratic Socialist." It sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but it happens to matter in this case. Why? Because Bernie, as anyone would expect, does not identify with the state owning the means of production or any Soviet-type government. He's not in favor of dictatorship or authoritarianism. What Bernie means is a label for New Deal style policies. That's all. Given that, any way you feel about socialism, its history and track record, is already moot -- why? Because that's not what Bernie is talking about. That's precisely why he adds the "democratic" part, to differentiate from Russian and Cuba and others.

That being said, your assessment of the history of socialism is itself a little strange. Of course there's been a trail of death and tyranny. But that's any form of government, ideology, religion, etc. That's capitalism too -- FAR more deadly than socialism. The countries who have professed to be capitalists are responsible for huge atrocities for centuries now. But doing a body count is a silly way to proceed anyway.

Lastly, I'm not "equivocating" anything. I'm saying Bernie should be judged based on his policies and proposals, almost all of which have majority support in this country. They're therefore not "radical" or socialist pipe dreams. They are what's done in many countries in the world. They're also richt in line with our own history: the FDR era, through Eisenhower and even Nixon. So getting caught up in a label is useless -- just look at the policies, and you'll see what Bernie means by "Democratic Socialism." Don't agree with the policies? Fine, then give a sensible argument for why they don't work. Waving your hand and saying "it's socialist"isn't an argument.

I think swinging the country in the direction of a new New Deal is a very smart choice and very much needed, after years of neoliberal policy -- the results we see all around us. If you really feel we're (the working and middle classes) better off now than we were in the 50s and 60s under New Deal policies, that's a debate worth having.

Or run away instead. Probably the best move for you.
— Xtrix

No use debating something who can't deal with the obvious. Sanders himself says he's socialist, there's no need for me or anyone here to define it. SO, not running away, moving on to something useful. — Wayfarer

No, running away. And rightfully so. Why? Because it's a very complicated issue and extremely hard to pin down -- and that's exactly my point.

So long as it's true that "God" or "socialism" or "liberal" or any other word you use is open to a large range of interpretation, and since in this domain (politics) it's important to be as clear and precise as we can be (because the stakes for the country and world are very large), we cannot just throw words around and say "Ah, you know what I mean - it's obvious." It isn't obvious. You and I have a vastly different concept of "socialism," to take an immediate example. It's therefore worth discussing what we're talking about when we use the word to see if statements about this "entity" is reasonable and accurate or not.

I hold the following: all that's meant by "Democratic Socialism" is New Deal-type policies with the following aims:: (1) creating a society that works better for working and middle class people -- the 80+% of us. (2) Creating a fairer distribution of wealth. (3) Guaranteeing free healthcare and education, both (and especially the former) being seen as a human right.

I do NOT interpret the word to mean Communism, or the State "owning the means of production." I consider it simply the above policies with said goals. Now it's questionable I (or we) should even call it "socialism", given socialism's long and negative history in this country. That's an interesting topic, but one we can't even have if by "socialism" you mean something radically different than what I mean. At that point we're talking passed one another.

Oh. Yea, that wasn't Wall St. asking for a bail out. It was the freaking chairman if the federal reserve and the secretary of the treasury. — frank

No, it was Wall Street. It was the financial institutions -- the same ones that put millions of dollars into Obama's campaign. They received a slap on the wrist from Obama, not surprisingly.

The Chairman of the Fed and the Treasury Secretary asking for a bail-out doesn't make sense. There may have been a debate about whether or not the government SHOULD intervene, and there was real debate about that, but that's a different discussion. It was the Fed and Treasury that needed bailing out.

Bernie Sanders is an avowed, self-declared, democratic socialist, and the meaning is as clear as day. Over and out. — Wayfarer

The meaning is as clear as day. OK, then define it for us all: what's "socialism"? And what's "Democratic socialism"?

Or run away instead. Probably the best move for you.

The word "socialist" is meaningless. Until it's defined you're simply talking nonsense. This is exactly the point I made earlier. If you want to tell us what you mean by socialism, go right ahead.
— Xtrix

I spelled it out, and got a wall of blather in return. — Wayfarer

No, you didn't. You said he was a socialist (not true) and then that his policies are socialist (without defining what socialism is).

So again, I repeat:
1) Bernie is a self-described Democratic Socialist. What does that mean and how is it different from "socialism"? Good question, and worth talking about.
2) His policies are popular and are similar to other countries around the world, like single-payer healthcare. To say this is "socialist" is essentially like saying high schools and libraries are socialist too. You agree with that or not? Trick question, since you haven't defined socialism.

The corporate tax rates in Denmark or Sweden are not that high, but Bernie wants to raise it to 35%.
— NOS4A2

Corporate tax rates were above 45% from just after WW2 until Reagan. Even then they were around 35% until 3 years ago. And America had a stronger economy relative to the world in those days so a high corporate tax rate must be a good thing??

I actually think it is way more complicated than that (in fact, when corporate taxes were at 35%, the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate was below 20%). So raising the corporate tax rate back to where it was 3 years ago (which was EFFECTIVELY the same as it is today) does not seem to be a big issue?? — ZhouBoTong

I think NOS4A2 doesn't care much about any of these details. He'll move on to the next Limbaugh talking point like "socialism always fails (even though the word is meaningless)", wonderful historical facts like "Charles I created the Post Office," or else put on his Nostradamus hat and foresee the collapse of the Chinese economy because they're too "mercantile."

I wouldn't put in much more effort.

Bernie's policies aren't socialism.
— Xtrix

But Bernie himself says he's socialist. — Wayfarer

No, he says he's a Democratic Socialist. But that means almost nothing outside the context of his proposals. HIs policies aren't socialist (according to our friend), since they're clearly in line with other countries like Canada, Britain, Germany, the Nordic countries, etc.

Free public health, free public higher education, and forgiveness of student debt, paid for by higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations - those are his policies, and they are socialist. — Wayfarer

The word "socialist" is meaningless. Until it's defined you're simply talking nonsense. This is exactly the point I made earlier. If you want to tell us what you mean by socialism, go right ahead.

It's true that those are Sanders' policies. It's also true that he describes himself as a Democratic Socialist. Thus, all we really know is that, to Bernie Sanders, "democratic socialist" means exactly these policies. Fine, so let's look at the policies and ask if they make sense.

Turns out, they do. They're also popular. They'd be very good for the country. If you want to discuss the details about how it's paid for, great. But let's stop wasting time being hung up on this "socialism" nonsense -- because no one knows what the hell they're talking about. It's like the word "God." Seems like it has meaning, but in the end it's so amorphous as to be completely empty. It ends up being a bit of a Rorschach test, telling us more about the psychology of the person who sees "evil" or "good," etc. Most people who associate it only with failed states, Stalin, Mao, etc., probably grew up during the Cold War, for example.

He openly is calling for a political revolution in favour of the majority against corporatism. — Wayfarer

Yeah, so? That could make him a kind of Communist, Anarchist, Marxist, or someone without any label whatsoever who simply recognizes the state of affairs and what needs to be done.

Again, let's move beyond meaningless labeling. Who cares.

Regarding the debate last night:

I didn't think Sanders looked bad at all, despite everyone coming after him. I only wish he'd tighten up the "how are you gonna pay for it" stuff with some quick responses. Say Mexico will pay for it, anything. Who cares anyway...certainly not the right-wing hypocrites. They don't really care anyway, they just pretend to when it's a proposal that doesn't benefit the wealthiest .001%, which they all apparently believe themselves to be (or at least have been convinced giving everything away to these corporate masters is good for the economy).

By this time next week, Sanders will be the clear nominee. Maybe a couple of others will stick around, but it'll be essentially over. Mark my words. All of the attacks and the negative press only helps him.

US centrism is always so much fun.

It's an INTERNATIONAL conspiracy man! ALL the European and Asian universities are in on it too! Damn conspirational experts with their Internet and stuff coordinating all this and STILL nobody can find proof of the stuff I see, which if why I know climate change is a HOAX. The MSM are in on it too! Everywhere! There's not a newspaper in sight that doesn't peddle climate change fantasies. You need to read up on some real news on BREITBART.

They took our jobs!

They're going to take our guns!

Civil war! Semper fi! — Benkei

Exactly. It's pretty disheartening to know how effective "politicizing" something can be. If I were an Exxon executive, or a Koch brother, and my wealth and power was threatened by the findings of science, I would certainly (if I were greedy and shortsighted) spend a great sum of money on sowing doubt, spreading misinformation, and associating any mention of the phenomenon as a product of the "elites," the liberal universities, or just liberals in general. Tree-hugging hippies, etc.

It's been effective enough to convince a large minority in this country that nothing is happening or, if there is something happening, we can't do anything about it -- and there's always some reason or other why we can't do anything: it'll destroy the economy, the rest of the world pollutes too, it's too expensive, we're all doomed anyway, God promised Noah there wouldn't be another flood, etc.

True. Although it's equally true there "no need to be idiotic."

But when you make no effort to understand the words you're using, repeating conservative talk radio canards, repeatedly mischaracterizing what others are saying...yeah, I eventually lose interest, and respect.

The world is a complex place. "Socialism" has a long history, at least to the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. There have been many branches, some statist some anti-statist. There have been countries who claim to be socialist or communist to appeal to the people, there are countries that have equated both ideologies with evil. Propaganda abounds. But if you study history, you find that since the industrial revolution, most countries have had economies that work essentially for the powerful and "responsible" class of men, whatever they claim to be. Most economies are "mixed" in the sense of having a large degree of state intervention along with privatization and "free markets," etc.

This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, or even liberal or conservative. Try to look beyond these categories, as they're fairly devoid of meaning as well. "Socialism" is no exception.

If you want to discuss Sanders' policies seriously, fine. So far you've said nothing except parrot tired, long-refuted lines that I hear all the time when I put on Fox News. It's cheap, it's easy, and it's exactly what we're getting at here and here. Stop being one of these clowns. Otherwise, don't be surprised when you're (correctly) called pathetic.

Somebody needs to STFU. :shade: — 180 Proof

I agree.

It’s true that China has developed an economically-viable brand of Socialism, but it’s too totalitarian and mercantilist to last. — NOS4A2

God you're pathetic.

Love the Limbaugh talking points, though.

No, I do have a problem bringing those policies to the US. But mostly I have a problem with Bernie’s statist policies, which differ in many respect to the countries he holds as exemplars. The corporate tax rates in Denmark or Sweden are not that high, but Bernie wants to raise it to 35%. Denmark and Sweden don’t have government-mandated minimum wage; Bernie wants government-mandated minimum wage. His Green New Deal is the thing nightmares are made out of. — NOS4A2

The corporate tax rate was much higher in another socialist country I can think of...called the United States. We had a pretty good economy back then, too.

Denmark has much higher real wages than the US, whose real wages have stagnated since the 70s.

The rest can be ignored -- you're talking nonsense again and I'm tired of correcting you. I won't even bother to have you elaborate, lest you cite Wikipedia and the dictionary again or, worse, your own memory (Charles the 1st created the post office, after all.) :roll:

Summing up:

Bernie's policies aren't socialism.
You have no clue what socialism is.
His policies are both popular and logical.