What Makes Bernie Sanders a Socialist?

      I'm not asking the question in a snarky way-just really am curious. Listen to how he answers this question:

     " Later Sanders was asked for his take on the “pivot” of the Reagan presidency in favor of the idea “that we need less government and more market forces.” Sanders’s response:

“I think there is obviously an enormously important role for the free market and for entrepreneurial activity. I worry how free the free market is. In sector after sector, you have a small number of companies controlling a large part of the sector.

“Certainly, in my view, the major banks should be broken up. We want entrepreneurs and private businesses to create wealth. No problem. But what we’re living in now is what I would call — what Pope Francis calls — a casino-type capitalism, which is out of control, where the people on top have lost any sense of responsibility for the rest of the society. Where it’s just ‘It’s all me. It’s all me. And to heck with anybody else.’ I want to see the result of that wealth go to the broad middle class of this country and not just to a handful of people.”

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-calls-for-downward-transfer-of-wealth-of-top-one-percent/ 

     So he's a 'socialist' but he believes in the free market and entrepreneurial activity? What makes him a socialist then? He seems if anything to want the free market to be 'more free' based on his words. 

    Just curious is all as he is from a party that calls itself the Socialist party. Ralph Nader calls himself a socialist and at one time at least called for the nationalization of the Fortune 500. 

    Yet, I find him curious too as much time as he on CNBC. 

     http://www.cnbc.com/id/102711033

     
     The great baseball union leader Marvin Miller was not a socialist but the most capitalistic one in baseball-most of the owners wanted socialism-Bud Selig was such a believer that he's entitled to other people's money he's have made Stalin blush. 

      How is Sanders going to win the Democratic nomination though-as he's not even in the party? Again, he's in the Socialist party. 

     I think what's going on is what Harry Enton over at Nate Silver's blog noted: Democrats want Hillary to have a primary but they want her to win. Sanders is basically obliging. Think about it-if he were serious why would he not be running in the Socialist party primary?

     http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/democrats-want-clinton-to-face-a-primary-challenger-but-they-want-clinton-to-win/

     Greg Sargent of course wants to believe that this might make a difference on what Hillary runs on-but even he admits this will be at the margin-that there aren't enormous differences between what Sanders is advocating and what Hillary is:

     "The differences among Democrats on economic issues tend to be exaggerated; in the wake of the economic crisis there may be more agreement among them on these issues than there has been in a long time. But some philosophical differences remain, and Sanders’ quotes get at them."

      "This narrative tends to place more emphasis on the idea that inequality is the result of active policy choices — or policy failures — that have resulted in decades of upward wealth redistribution. In this diagnosis, what is required is a robust policy response designed to reverse what those choices have wrought, and to prevent them from doing more of the same again. This agenda includes things like a financial transactions tax to incentivize more stable, longer-term investments; breaking up the big banks; major campaign finance reform; and much tougher financial regulation and enforcement as part of what Warren calls a “structural” overhaul of Wall Street oversight. These are the sorts of policies Sanders is talking about."

     "To be sure, there is plenty of overlap between these two agendas; Clinton will probably end up supporting prescriptions from both. Clinton has embraced workplace flexibility policies, but she has also spoken out against the influence of big money in politics, and appears to favor calls for doing away with some high-end tax loopholes. But we don’t know how far she’ll go in terms of calling for higher taxes on the wealthy or more Wall Street oversight and accountability; or more generally, how directly she’ll embrace redistributive goals (which Sanders has now done with extreme forthrightness)."

     "I don’t really know how much this will matter politically. For all the talk about the supposed problems Clinton has with the left, it’s not even clear that Democratic primary voters will clamor for the more robust Sanders/Warren inequality agenda."

     I don't think it's anything to make heavy weather over-Sargent is not really doing that either. Again how does Sanders get votes in the primary if he isn't even a member of the party?

    If he really wanted to do something wouldn't he go third party? This tells me that he himself isn't trying to do a Nader-back in 2000 Nader hurt Gore just enough in the general election to give the election to W. 

     So Bernie in a sense is maybe even being a loyal foot solider for the party-there's a desire for a primary but one she will win. Sanders is basically obliging. 

    P.S. As Enten puts it 'We're Americans, we like choices.' Even if  we've already made up our mind...

    Of course, I personally was born in Britain-I grew up in America and am an American citizen-while retaining my British citizenship. 

   Perhaps this is why I'd be happy with a straight coronation without even the pretense of a primary challenge.