In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 11 2016 06:47 oneofthem wrote: the basic idea is that people know candidates through media crafted impressions. this idea that there is no demographic that would be swayed by a 'socialist' portrayal of sanders is akin to denying the effectiveness of advertising in creating rather than informing consumption. etc etc
Which isn't my point. My point is that Obama was portrayed as a socialist among other things and triumphed regardless, twice. The label in and of itself is insufficient.
There isn't a universal understanding and aversion to "socialism" in Americans. A great number at this point don't know what socialism is and/or have some vague notion that it's supposed to be a bad thing. Those people will hear Sanders' stump, come to their own conclusions about him, and the label will be inconsequential.
If a media narrative sinks Sanders it's not going to be due to the "socialist" label, but due to being hammered on foreign policy and on raising taxes (despite the fact that he won't be raising taxes on the vast majority of voters).
Socialist is the first cut. Sanders has got tons of flaws which haven't been paraded at all, both policy and personal. The true, the untrue, everything will be thrown at him no matter how great of a guy his supporters (and this Hillary supporter I may add) think he is.
Hillary has 20+ years of failures which have been trotted out. We hear very little about her accomplishments in the media, because honestly that's boring shit that won't sell. Wait till the same happens to Bernie. So far he's been running as our savior or saint, and that's going to come crashing down I'm afraid.
On February 11 2016 07:29 oneofthem wrote: outside of supporting da amerikan security state i dont see much big disagreements but anyway i am thinking of a potential hard choice for the bernie democrats.
say he loses and people produce numbers say that bernie won the popular vote but lost the ec(superdelegates), there may just be a split in the democrat party. how would you bernie bros feel about this sort of a move. what if we have a tea party of the left
We may end up with 3 parties, a left, right, and centrist party. Considering how the demos are shaping out, the centrists and right are only a couple decades from dying into near irrelevance.
If Hillary stole the election from the people it's only a matter of time before the demographics of old voters vs younger more left leaning voters plays out and people realize under 60's who make less than $200,000/yr have many, many, many more potential votes than those folks who usually pick the winner.
On February 11 2016 07:29 oneofthem wrote: outside of supporting da amerikan security state i dont see much big disagreements but anyway i am thinking of a potential hard choice for the bernie democrats.
say he loses and people produce numbers say that bernie won the popular vote but lost the ec(superdelegates), there may just be a split in the democrat party. how would you bernie bros feel about this sort of a move. what if we have a tea party of the left
It's already there. The party is called "Bernie Supporters."
"Berniecrats" is the loose name that's been adopted.
Lot's of Bernie supporters are involved in the process exclusively for Bernie and would not have ever voted for Hillary anyway. Hell there's a whole group who would normally be in GOP primaries but have been so disaffected they support Bernie now, they ain't going to Hillary either.
As the polls have shown typical party folks favor Hillary, Bernie crushed her in NH on the backs of independents (and in every demo that wasn't 65+ making 200k a year...except non white where Bernie got 49%).
First, you know how you can slice statistics in many ways to support an argument? Hillary won among those who were most concerned about experience 87-13. Hillary also won among registered Democrats. Regardless of results, 40% of NH still voted for Hillary which is far from an insignificant number. Of course, these moderates you deride are all going to die out and wholly irrelevant...
So far he's been running as our savior or saint, and that's going to come crashing down I'm afraid.
Ok this one was definitely tried before on Obama and he easily has more issues that would back up the idea he wasn't a savior/saint, that one failed too.
Bernie supporters aren't as blind as Hillary supporters seem to think. If propaganda is the plan I can't think of a better way to energize the youth vote. Under 29's can spot when they are being lied to through advertising at a higher rate than any other group. That, and nothing, I repeat, nothing, would make them happier than pissing off a bunch of old people by doing the opposite of what the propaganda suggests.
Hillary losing the women vote in NH is your first peep hole into that reality. Losing women under 30 4-1 is just the tip of the iceberg.
And Bernie got Ben Jealous, Ta-Nahisi Coats, Harry Belafonte, Michelle Alexander, and Danny Glover (for good measure).
Every step of Hillary's campaign reinforces what everyone's problem with her (and the black establishment in this case) is.
I expect SC to look like the last races where Hillary gets a majority of 65+ but get's crushed in the under 45's. The electability argument boils down to whether people want to vote or not, Sanders easily has way more popular support.
On February 11 2016 07:08 Nyxisto wrote: he's still not running a socialist platform, he's about as socialist as the Tories. He should just drop the word.
Yes, this. If you aren't going to be seizing the means of production or nationalizing the industries, then stop talking like you are a socialist. The word he is looking for is "Liberal Democrat" but old Bernie has been an independent too long for that label.
im sitting here hoping that rent is damn high dude would run but it's kind of funny that in the land of the free and the land of the party the driver of inequality and rentier economy is kind of the same mechanism, land. you would think some sort of georgist candidate would make the pitch.
^bernie is a democratic socialist. you remember that eugene debs guy that obama got tarred with.
advanced preview of koch operative material. i just googled sanders debs lol
On February 11 2016 07:08 Nyxisto wrote: he's still not running a socialist platform, he's about as socialist as the Tories. He should just drop the word.
Yes, this. If you aren't going to be seizing the means of production or nationalizing the industries, then stop talking like you are a socialist. The word he is looking for is "Liberal Democrat" but old Bernie has been an independent too long for that label.
Bernie can't hide behind semantics. Hell, he doesn't want to. He openly labels himself a democratic socialist.
We may end up with 3 parties, a left, right, and centrist party. Considering how the demos are shaping out, the centrists and right are only a couple decades from dying into near irrelevance.
The idea that the democrats could become a proper left party which doesnt constantly betray and fuck over the working class is nice, but very unlikely.
^what do you mean by hiding behind semantics? Calling Sanders a socialist is simply incorrect, it directly contradicts with the definiton of socialism. He's a social/liberal democrat.
On February 11 2016 07:59 ticklishmusic wrote: You've offered near-zero evidence to support the assertion that certain Sanders supporters aren't as blind as I think.
We know about his "hippy" past, his child out of wedlock, exwife (different people) and we noticed when Hillary made a slight about his grandkids basically suggesting step kids aren't really yours.
His exwife actually is going to vote for him lol.
What people don't realize is that stuff won't work on his supporters, it actually just makes him look more human. Many Bernie supporters have been scouring looking for oppo and when it surfaces it always has the same reaction, "wait THAT's his 'scandal!?!?"
The argument basically boils down to "The American people are too dumb to discern the credibility or significance of propaganda"
In that context I admit it will be a tough fight, but losing it means we're all buggered and doesn't help us at all. Something I would think shouldn't be touted as a victory for anyone but those in control (*hint* not anyone here).
On February 11 2016 07:08 Nyxisto wrote: he's still not running a socialist platform, he's about as socialist as the Tories. He should just drop the word.
Yes, this. If you aren't going to be seizing the means of production or nationalizing the industries, then stop talking like you are a socialist. The word he is looking for is "Liberal Democrat" but old Bernie has been an independent too long for that label.
Bernie can't hide behind semantics. Hell, he doesn't want to. He openly labels himself a democratic socialist.
I think he is wrong. He says democratic socialist, but can you really be socialist if you don't want nationalization? I know he says he wants to go closer to European models of governance, but they aren't socialist. Where are the state run industries of Europe? They have high tax supported welfare states, but that is just a difference of Degree from FDR-New-Dealism; not a difference in Kind. European states are liberal capitalists states run on private enterprise models. No marxist labor theory of values to be found.
On February 11 2016 08:07 Plansix wrote: Socialism doesn't require the "seizing the means of production or nationalizing the industries". That's one route, but it is not a requirement.
Yes it is.
but can you really be socialist if you don't want nationalization?
On February 11 2016 08:07 Plansix wrote: Socialism doesn't require the "seizing the means of production or nationalizing the industries". That's one route, but it is not a requirement.
Yes it is.
I am going to save some time here. You are right, he isn't' a socialist. I don't think he cares that much, tbh. But its nice that people reminding us about the origins of the word and who it was initially defined.
^you are really pigeonholing it. socialism has many meanings in different political contexts. sanders probably did support the USSR model at some point and still is a movement socialist.
On February 11 2016 08:19 Plansix wrote: So its all semantic's and what you are willing to accept as socialism? Your entitled to that opinion, but I am not sure Sanders or the EU cares.
On February 11 2016 08:07 Plansix wrote: Socialism doesn't require the "seizing the means of production or nationalizing the industries". That's one route, but it is not a requirement.
Yes it is.
I am going to save some time here. You are right, he isn't' a socialist. I don't think he cares that much, tbh. But its nice that people reminding us about the origins of the word and who it was initially defined.
Key point initially defined.
The meanings of words change, probably very rapidly in politics.
In 2016 USA, Bernie Sanders platform can probably reasonably define him as a socialist. Its a useful term (at least as useful as conservative, liberal, progressive, feminist, capitalist, fascist, etc.) for letting people know what he will propose.
On February 11 2016 08:19 Plansix wrote: So its all semantic's and what you are willing to accept as socialism? Your entitled to that opinion, but I am not sure Sanders or the EU cares.
On February 11 2016 08:07 Plansix wrote: Socialism doesn't require the "seizing the means of production or nationalizing the industries". That's one route, but it is not a requirement.
Yes it is.
I am going to save some time here. You are right, he isn't' a socialist. I don't think he cares that much, tbh. But its nice that people reminding us about the origins of the word and who it was initially defined.
Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, and China are for sure socialist.
Venezuela - state oil company, ideological vanguard, labor theory of value, unlimited central government authority, marxist/bolivarian ideology China - no property rights (all 99 year leases), ideological vanguard, endless state industries, unlimited central government authority, marxist/maoist ideology North Korea - pretty obvious, check their murals Cuba - not going into this, you know it
Does Bernie ever quote Marx/Engels/Mao/Stalin/Trotsky? Socialism has a long ideological history and citing the big socialist thinkers of the past is a big part of it. You see murals of these guys's heads everywhere in socialist states.
On February 11 2016 08:07 Plansix wrote: Socialism doesn't require the "seizing the means of production or nationalizing the industries". That's one route, but it is not a requirement.
but can you really be socialist if you don't want nationalization?
yes, you can, e.g. communist anarchism
Only in the strictest sense of socialism as a means rather than an ends (the desired goal being government control over the economy). If you look at the results of a high taxes, protectionism, selective subsidies, directed taxes (on tobacco, carbon, etc) and regulations you can get 99% of the control that socialism provides, with much fewer political costs.
Take, for instance, minimum wage. The state could create a grocery store that pays whatever wage they like, but it would probably fail, and whoever's idea it was would be ridiculed. However, if you impose the minimum wage, what happens when that same store owner goes under is people say "haha look at that incompetent owner, he cannot adapt to the times." You can see this sentiment whenever the minimum wage or wal-mart comes up on Reddit as they circlejerk about how a "company that doesn't pay a living wage shouldn't exist."
Some of the very first things to come out when this was all getting started was that actual socialists universally agreed Bernie wasn't a socialist.
Personally I think the charge of calling him "a socialist" as a pejorative makes the person doing it look dumb and/or manipulative. Once people realize the context of this "socialist" charge they usually aren't fond of the people who fed it to them.
On February 11 2016 08:07 Plansix wrote: Socialism doesn't require the "seizing the means of production or nationalizing the industries". That's one route, but it is not a requirement.
Yes it is.
but can you really be socialist if you don't want nationalization?
yes, you can, e.g. communist anarchism
Only in the strictest sense of socialism as a means rather than an ends (the desired goal being government control over the economy). If you look at the results of a high taxes, protectionism, selective subsidies, directed taxes (on tobacco, carbon, etc) and regulations you can get 99% of the control that socialism provides, with much fewer political costs.
Take, for instance, minimum wage. The state could create a grocery store that pays whatever wage they like, but it would probably fail, and whoever's idea it was would be ridiculed. However, if you impose the minimum wage, what happens when that same store owner goes under is people say "haha look at that incompetent owner, he cannot adapt to the times." You can see this sentiment whenever the minimum wage or wal-mart comes up on Reddit as they circlejerk about how a "company that doesn't pay a living wage shouldn't exist."
If people think that arguing the solution to our current practice of subsidizing walmart wages with social programs, that make sure people have food and healthcare, is to remove the social programs and leave those folks on their own rather than force walmart to pay it's employees enough so that they don't qualify for government programs is a fight Bernie will be thrilled to take on.
EPT
