Chris Mathews asked Debbie Wasserman-Schultz this question the other night on his show and she clearly didn't want to touch the question.
So let me try. At it's very basic level, a socialist is someone who desires for the government to take over what Marx called 'the means of production.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
So a socialist candidate should do something like call for the nationalization of the Fortune 500 as Ralph Nader did back when he used to always run for President.
So far Bernie has called for nothing like that. Here Sanders elaborates on what he has in mind:
“In terms of socialism, I think there is a lot to be learned from Scandinavia and from some of the work, very good work that people have done in Europe. In countries like Finland, Norway, Denmark, poverty has almost been eliminated. All people have health care as a right of citizenship. College education is available to all people, regardless of income, virtually free. I have been very aggressive in trying to move to sustainable energy. They have a lot of political participation, high voter turnouts. I think there is a lot to be learned from countries that have created more egalitarian societies than has the United States of America.”
So let me try. At it's very basic level, a socialist is someone who desires for the government to take over what Marx called 'the means of production.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
So a socialist candidate should do something like call for the nationalization of the Fortune 500 as Ralph Nader did back when he used to always run for President.
So far Bernie has called for nothing like that. Here Sanders elaborates on what he has in mind:
“In terms of socialism, I think there is a lot to be learned from Scandinavia and from some of the work, very good work that people have done in Europe. In countries like Finland, Norway, Denmark, poverty has almost been eliminated. All people have health care as a right of citizenship. College education is available to all people, regardless of income, virtually free. I have been very aggressive in trying to move to sustainable energy. They have a lot of political participation, high voter turnouts. I think there is a lot to be learned from countries that have created more egalitarian societies than has the United States of America.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265.html#ixzz3ih7nJGlz
Those aren't socialist countries but capitalist countries with a larger welfare state. That's basically what a Democrat is-someone who believes in the free market but does think there's a role for government in terms of regulating the market and in terms of an adequate social safety net.
I do think that Bernie maniacs love him so much partly because he's a 'socialist.' In their mnid that means he's calling for systematic unselfishness or something wonderful like that.
Those aren't socialist countries but capitalist countries with a larger welfare state. That's basically what a Democrat is-someone who believes in the free market but does think there's a role for government in terms of regulating the market and in terms of an adequate social safety net.
I do think that Bernie maniacs love him so much partly because he's a 'socialist.' In their mnid that means he's calling for systematic unselfishness or something wonderful like that.
Can I just say I'm really sick of Bernie Sanders and his fans? I see Bernie supporters saying the most absurd things like he is superior to Hillary on racial justice.
Please. He didn't even mention race until BLM. Hillary has much better standing in the African-American community. First from her husband's administration where Bill Clinton was very popular.
Then in her time as Secretary of State for the first black President. I do think that BLM leader goes to far in claiming that America never has done anything for people of color. Obama has just as much 'color' as she does.
She also has called for prison reform, early voting, and dealing with police brutality.
But I guess his real appeal is that he somehow is superior to her on economic justice.
What's interesting though is Bernie's campaign manager was on Lawrence O'Donnell last night-who is just totally besotted with Bernie-and O'Donnell asked him the difference between Bernie and Hillary.
He had nothing but that Bernie is for the working class and about fighting the billionaire class. That's just a slogan not issues. The only meaningful difference was TPP and Keystone.
I see no reason why either of these issues need be litmus tests.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/hillary-and-keystone-litmus-test-fallacy.html
Why can't reasonable people ever disagree about anything when it comes to Bernie maniacs? She has not said she's for either just that she'll wait and see. What's wrong with that? Is everything always a matter of an immediate snap judgement? I am waiting and seeing on both these issues too so I know it's not a hypocritical stance.
Hillary is attacked by Fox News for not saying she will support Keystone and by the Bernie maniacs for not saying she won't. What part of haven't decided yet is so hard to comprehend?
Please. He didn't even mention race until BLM. Hillary has much better standing in the African-American community. First from her husband's administration where Bill Clinton was very popular.
Then in her time as Secretary of State for the first black President. I do think that BLM leader goes to far in claiming that America never has done anything for people of color. Obama has just as much 'color' as she does.
She also has called for prison reform, early voting, and dealing with police brutality.
But I guess his real appeal is that he somehow is superior to her on economic justice.
What's interesting though is Bernie's campaign manager was on Lawrence O'Donnell last night-who is just totally besotted with Bernie-and O'Donnell asked him the difference between Bernie and Hillary.
He had nothing but that Bernie is for the working class and about fighting the billionaire class. That's just a slogan not issues. The only meaningful difference was TPP and Keystone.
I see no reason why either of these issues need be litmus tests.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/hillary-and-keystone-litmus-test-fallacy.html
Why can't reasonable people ever disagree about anything when it comes to Bernie maniacs? She has not said she's for either just that she'll wait and see. What's wrong with that? Is everything always a matter of an immediate snap judgement? I am waiting and seeing on both these issues too so I know it's not a hypocritical stance.
Hillary is attacked by Fox News for not saying she will support Keystone and by the Bernie maniacs for not saying she won't. What part of haven't decided yet is so hard to comprehend?
No comments:
Post a Comment