The Socialist US Senator from the Great State of Vermont

[August1991]

Seriously though Democratic Socialism has a long history and is very different from Socialism.

I'm with Bubbler. What's the difference?

Punked, in your view, if 51% of people vote in favour of something, that makes it "democratic". So "democratic" socialism would allow 51% of the population to steal from the other 49%. Your democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

Punked, you would have society organized by majority rule - and you think that majority rule is democratic. (Hey, there's more poor people than rich people. Share the wealth!)

But how would gays or left-handed people think about such a rule?

----

Punked, I suggest that you go back and rethink "socialism" and "democracy".

What does that have to do with being allowed to be an atheist socialist?

Everything. Edited December 14, 2010 by August1991

[nickdlc]

Social democracy is a political ideology of the centre-left on the classic political spectrum. The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system.

This nails it. If Bernie Sanders or Jack Layton were faced with a population seeking workers control of production they would take sides with the people who give them a few extra scraps for keeping workers in line and tied to the idea that we should seek nothing better than "humane capitalism".

51% of the population to steal from the other 49%

I would rather have the majority rule than the current plutocracy who make the decisions without my vote.

Edited December 14, 2010 by nickdlc

[punked]

I'm with Bubbler. What's the difference?

Punked, in your view, if 51% of people vote in favour of something, that makes it "democratic". So "democratic" socialism would allow 51% of the population to steal from the other 49%. Your democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

Punked, you would have society organized by majority rule - and you think that majority rule is democratic. (Hey, there's more poor people than rich people. Share the wealth!)

But how would gays or left-handed people think about such a rule?

----

Punked, I suggest that you go back and rethink "socialism" and "democracy".

Everything.

As I pointed out before Democratic Socialism isn't about Socialism at all. It is about social justice in a capitalist society. Maybe you don't agree with that but only someone who knows nothing would confuse the two. It isn't socialism which is democratically voted for. Maybe you should pick up a book because it is a very different thing sorry.

[M.Dancer]

As I pointed out before Democratic Socialism isn't about Socialism at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

You remind me of those who claim that national socialiams has nothing to do with socialism either...

[punked]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

You remind me of those who claim that national socialiams has nothing to do with socialism either...

Good thing Sanders is a Social Democrat isn't it then? Again he doesn't believe in controlling the means of production. Again not the samething as Socialism at all. Anyone who thinks Sanders and in Canada the NDP are Socialist doesn't really understand politics or political leanings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Here is a quote which I think will help you.

"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 healthcare 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."

[BubberMiley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

You remind me of those who claim that national socialiams has nothing to do with socialism either...

But the Nazis had nothing to do with socialism, and killed most of those who did.

[M.Dancer]

But the Nazis had nothing to do with socialism, and killed most of those who did.

So social democrats and national socialists have nothing to do with socialism....

[punked]

So social democrats and national socialists have nothing to do with socialism....

I agree that was my point.

[M.Dancer]

I agree that was my point.

Hence their commonality. The dictatorship inherint in their non socialist agenda, their appeal to a greater morality, whether it is labled social justice or social nationalism...both should be viewed as suspect.

Thus, the task of the state toward capital was comparatively simple and clear: it only had to make certain that capital remain the handmaiden of the state and not fancy itself the mistress of the nation. This point of view could then be defined between two restrictive limits: preservation of a solvent, national, and independent economy on the one hand, assurance of the social rights of the workers on the other

Democratic socialism or national socialism?

Edited December 15, 2010 by M.Dancer

[punked]

Hence their commonality. The dictatorship inherint in their non socialist agenda, their appeal to a greater morality, whether it is labled social justice or social nationalism...both should be viewed as suspect.

You are being crazy.

[KeyStone]

You are being crazy.

Clearly, the National Socialist party was socialist, or they wouldn't have socialist in their name.

Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, must be Democratic or they wouldn't have Democratic in their name.

[bloodyminded]

Clearly, the National Socialist party was socialist, or they wouldn't have socialist in their name.

Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, must be Democratic or they wouldn't have Democratic in their name.

Just so.

[M.Dancer]

Clearly, the National Socialist party was socialist, or they wouldn't have socialist in their name.

Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, must be Democratic or they wouldn't have Democratic in their name.

Well, given that North Korea holds elections every 5 years....

But it is not because that there is socialist in the name of the National Socialist party that makes them socialist, it is there ideaology that makes them socialist. The rejection of materialism and the elevation of the collective over the individual that makes them socialist. Those are the cornerstones of socialism.

And whether the National Socialists fought against the international socialists is neither here nor there either. In fact, that is expected with zealots who believe they are keepers of the TRVTH, whether they are religious fanatics or socialists. The Communist Bolshevics fought the Communist Menshevics, the Marxist Leninists hated the Trotskyites....even in Canada the Marxist Leninist could get along with other communists...and of course, the NDP has its own schismatics, the waffle and the NDP socialist caucas...

[bloodyminded]

Well, given that North Korea holds elections every 5 years....

But it is not because that there is socialist in the name of the National Socialist party that makes them socialist, it is there ideaology that makes them socialist. The rejection of materialism and the elevation of the collective over the individual that makes them socialist. Those are the cornerstones of socialism.

All societies do this at specific moments...like when going to war, for example, we are informed that we are "united." Nonsense, of course, but a powerful impulse in all societies, including the ostensibly "individualistic" ones.

It even reaches the point where otherwise sane and reasonable Canadians and Americans genuinely believe that patriotism is a moral virtue. It isn't, of course. Virtually everybody has some learned patriotic feelings by the age of five. In and of itself, it's an utterly amoral faculty.

Despite our protestations, and people's amusing defensiveness on the matter: "I am so patriotic!"

And since you brought up zealotry and all.

Further, like all ideologies, National Socialism had its complexities, and even its ideological contradictions. I don't know what possible system does not, frankly, since they're all made up of a maddening and brilliant species of ape.

So the National Socialists, while elevating the collective, also had space for the "Superman."

And as we adore the Superman, we are also intensely collectively-minded....conservatives every bit as much as leftists just as much as moderates equal to the relatively apolitical among us.

Human beings are social animals--by definition, it's part of what we biologically are--but we are also individuals, in some ways intensely so.

Edited December 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[punked]

Well, given that North Korea holds elections every 5 years....

But it is not because that there is socialist in the name of the National Socialist party that makes them socialist, it is there ideaology that makes them socialist. The rejection of materialism and the elevation of the collective over the individual that makes them socialist. Those are the cornerstones of socialism.

And whether the National Socialists fought against the international socialists is neither here nor there either. In fact, that is expected with zealots who believe they are keepers of the TRVTH, whether they are religious fanatics or socialists. The Communist Bolshevics fought the Communist Menshevics, the Marxist Leninists hated the Trotskyites....even in Canada the Marxist Leninist could get along with other communists...and of course, the NDP has its own schismatics, the waffle and the NDP socialist caucas...

You might remember the waffle was kicked out of the NDP and the NDP was the first party to go to individual memberships members as the CCF because the Ontario party needed to kick out the socialist that were trying to seize the party. The NDP are Social Democrats and that is really that.

[M.Dancer]

You might remember the waffle was kicked out of the NDP

Yes, I already commented on the schismatic nature of those who believe they possess TRVTH.

and the NDP was the first party to go to individual memberships members as the CCF because the Ontario party needed to kick out the socialist that were trying to seize the party.

A democratic socialist is a socialist in a multi party system and has given up hope of changing the consititution....

Jack Layton used to boast about being a socialist. “I’m proud to call myself a socialist. I prefer it by far to democratic socialist,” he said in an interview seven years ago.

Yet when I posed the same question yesterday, he was less strident. “I’m not into labels, but I prefer the description ‘social democrat’. I am the leader of Canada’s social democratic party and proud of it,” he said.

*snip*

The preamble currently states the NDP believes in the need “to modify and control the operation of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning, … where necessary [through] the principle of social ownership.”

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/07/john-ivison-taking-the-socialist-out-of-the-ndp/#ixzz18NmO8pNp

The NDP are Social Democrats and that is really that.

Including the NDP social caucus

[Shady]

A democratic socialist is a socialist in a multi party system and has given up hope of changing the consititution....

Exactly. Apparently punked thinks we should all champion the fact that this particular socialist senator has given up on constitutional change, and/or use of force to implement his Marxist philosophy. Oh yay, what a great man!

[punked]

A democratic socialist is a socialist in a multi party system and has given up hope of changing the consititution....

They already changed it that was what the whole Winnipeg Declaration was about, this one happen in 1956 so maybe open a book.

[punked]

Exactly. Apparently punked thinks we should all champion the fact that this particular socialist senator has given up on constitutional change, and/or use of force to implement his Marxist philosophy. Oh yay, what a great man!

Not what I said I just pointed out he isn't a Socialist only an idiot would say he was.

[Jack Weber]

So social democrats and national socialists have nothing to do with socialism....

National Socialism is a word play game...Kinda like German Democratic Republic...

The NAZI's were pure Fascists...I suppose that because they had a top down/authoritarian type of government that it could be mixed up as socialist,but seeing as Herr Schickelgruber had as many Socialists killed as Communists,even he made the distinction...

[jbg]

You just gotta love the United States. I am not even certain that we elect guys like this in Canada.

Oops! You accidentally put "socialist" in the title. Easy mistake.

As a member of the Fronde, I'm sure you'll accept Wikipedia/The Guardian as a source:Wikipedia

August is exactly right. Sanders is a self admitted socialist. It's no mistake.

Class warfare is no way to run a country.

The US voters base their decision on multi-million dollar fearmongering marketing campaigns that stake out certain positions, making it nearly impossible for moderates to take a moderate position.

Bernie Sanders is a courageous individual who is not afraid to speak the truth. He recognizes that socialist is not necessarily a bad thing. He is not afraid to speak in favour of high taxes when they are needed, and is more than willing to speak up and oppse any politician, be they Republican or Democrat.

The fact that he is perpetually re-elected in Vermont, speaks well of the state.

If it weren't for the oil, I'd propose a swap of Alberta for Vermont.

Vermont voters are frequently ex-pat New Yorkers whose socialist beliefs were hatched on New York's Upper West Side. Their views, rejected in New York, have found succor in Vermont, Western Massachusetts and even New Hampshire to some extent.

Their views are ideological, beautiful - and 100% impractical.

[Yukon Jack]

When I was young and when my kids were young, and when I lived in Burlington, Ontario, we used to go to Burlington, Vermont for our kids to participate in the Burlington International Games, or hosted (billeted) kids from Vermont in alternating years.

The people (parents) I met there never impressed me as rabid socialists as Bernie Sanders or Patrick Leahey, United States Senators.

They got what they deserve. Nuff said.

[Pliny]

Of course, I have to join in on this discussion.

I think most of the liberals here believe that socialism is a totalitarian/authoritarian regime where the people own the means of production and there are no classes such as rich and poor. True, this is the ideal of the total state.

I often wondered why fascism, defined on a simple political spectrum, as total government on the extreme right wing and communism/socialism,defined as total government on the left wing were considered opposites. Total government to me is total government the ideological differences are less than their ideological similarities which include a central authority, government control of the economy, and the control of social essentials such as education, health care, employment, etc.

Now the left has no problem calling the right fascist. Bush is a fascist. Cheney is fascist. Ronald Reagan was a fascist. Nowhere is there total government but some of their policies may be considered ultra right wing. The creation of Homeland security and the Patriot Act are something I wouldn't support because they are a move toward total government. I tend to think of any increase in the mandate and reach of government as socialist. The Bush administration could be accused of that, perhaps but not Reagan. The left doesn't fail to miss that fascism may be a part of some of the right's policies but do miss that some of the policies of the left can be socialist by denying any socialist concept could exist out of the ideal. On both sides of the spectrum those policies that grow government are moves towards total government.

I reiterate now what I have been expounding over the years on this forum that a true political spectrum that makes sense and can be understood by anyone without any of the political obfuscation of where political parties are on the spectrum, by just considering the spectrum to be from anarchy on one side to total government on the other side. We would see that total government would include all totalitarian authoritarian regimes and moving toward small government would be moving closer to anarchy. This scale correctly illustrates the slide from limited government to total government that has occurred and is evident in democracies over the last century. Canada has slid toward big government faster than the US and Europe faster than Canada.

The left has no problem identifying Sweden as socialist and heralding it as the great socialist paradise and successful socialist experiment. But some key elements of "socialism" in it's ideological sense are missing, such as the ownership of production by the people. Canada has similar social programs to Sweden, they have public education, government health care, old age security, employment insurance but is not cosidered by most Canadians as being socialist whatsoever.

In fact there exists capitalist and corporate enterprise in Sweden. Wouldn't this then better fall under the ideology of fascism rather than socialism, at least in the economic sense?

I am only interested in unraveling the built in obfuscation and complexity of politics because politics is the dirtiest game in town. Many confusions are unnecessarily entered into politics in order to aggrandize government and keep the great sham of it's necessity in our lives to protect us from all sorts of imaginary boogey men and our scary next door neighbours. Nothing is as it seems. Our neigbours are serial killers and such until proven otherwise and even then we can't be too sure. This paranoia is what big government spreads.

Basically, if you want to avoid living in fear we just have to realize that every move to involve government in our lives is a move toward total government. People may point to the fact that, taxes are down but that is a mere blip ifit is true at all. The trend is definitely not towards less taxes and the call for more taxes, basically on the rich because taxes couldn't come from anywhere but where there is money in the first place, is a bit totalitarian isn't it? A least it is a move toward totalitarianism.

[Michael Hardner]

I am only interested in unraveling the built in obfuscation and complexity of politics because politics is the dirtiest game in town. Many confusions are unnecessarily entered into politics in order to aggrandize government and keep the great sham of it's necessity in our lives to protect us from all sorts of imaginary boogey men and our scary next door neighbours. Nothing is as it seems. Our neigbours are serial killers and such until proven otherwise and even then we can't be too sure. This paranoia is what big government spreads.

There's no point in even discussing the name-calling of 'fascist' and 'socialist'. It happens on both sides, and to my mind it just indicates that the person doing the name-calling isn't interested in dialogue as much as they are in shouting.

Basically, if you want to avoid living in fear we just have to realize that every move to involve government in our lives is a move toward total government. People may point to the fact that, taxes are down but that is a mere blip ifit is true at all. The trend is definitely not towards less taxes and the call for more taxes, basically on the rich because taxes couldn't come from anywhere but where there is money in the first place, is a bit totalitarian isn't it? A least it is a move toward totalitarianism.

We already discussed this in another thread and we showed that tax rates on the rich have fallen. But you have this all-or-nothing attitude that says, basically, if the city puts up a parking meter then that's tantamount to Stalin rolling in with tanks.

ANY move to involved government is a move toward total government ? Theoretically that's true, but why should we care to discuss such minor philosophical points ?

There is a marketplace of ideas, and the power of government in our society ebbs and flows according to the popular will. You want to turn the clock back to before the 1920s, that's fine. But nobody else really does.

[Pliny]

There's no point in even discussing the name-calling of 'fascist' and 'socialist'. It happens on both sides, and to my mind it just indicates that the person doing the name-calling isn't interested in dialogue as much as they are in shouting.

They are in their ideal the totalitarian state. Shouldn't we discuss how they come about?

I consider Fascism a form of socialism because of the similarities and the fact they are both, in their ideal, totalitarian states. So how do we arrive at a totalitarian state? In a nut shell power becomes centralized, money is the first shackle to be removed. Governments have to take over the creation of money. Once that is achieved it is a slow march to the further centralization of power. This has produced entitlements to the populace and a level of socialism in the society that any threat to those entitlements, be they for professionals, the poor, minorities, will not be given up without a fight.

That fight becomes a struggle between different socialist parties. It is likely that liberal and conservatives have morphed into socialist parties if they haven't disappeared.

WHen it gets serious enough people like Chavez appear to to "save the country".

We already discussed this in another thread and we showed that tax rates on the rich have fallen. But you have this all-or-nothing attitude that says, basically, if the city puts up a parking meter then that's tantamount to Stalin rolling in with tanks.

We showed that income tax rates have fallen not that taxes have fallen. The tax load has shifted to areas like the GST, fines and user fees. This, along with inflation, serves to undermine the purchasing power of those on fixed incomes and the lower income levels. The rich are irrelevant really. They usually get by by understanding what is going on through their accountants and lawyers. The poor don't even realize that inflation is a form of taxation and 2%/ annum loss on their buying power is affecting their ability to keep up with the cost of living. The soicalist will tell them that but doesn't suggest we do anything about government created inflation, which they realize is necessary to ensure government revenues. Instead the lower classes must be compensated for it in their wages with annual raises. The result of which is increased unemployment and the roller-coaster ride goes on.

Of course let's ridicule each movement to bigger government by claiming they are tantamount to the realization of the total state. It's the inch by inch progression over the years and decades that needs to be noticed. But let's focus on the idiocy of equating parking meters to tanks rollin gin the streets.

ANY move to involved government is a move toward total government ? Theoretically that's true, but why should we care to discuss such minor philosophical points ?

There is a marketplace of ideas, and the power of government in our society ebbs and flows according to the popular will. You want to turn the clock back to before the 1920s, that's fine. But nobody else really does.

Turn the clock back? how about we get it started again and start living our own lives instead of looking to government to put us out to pasture, milking us twice a day and running on their time clock.

Sure there is a market place of ideas, Michael. None will affect healthcare or education other than increasing "resources". Those two social essentials have reached the ideal and it is unnecessary to introduce change - especially change that might interfere with the level of annually increased funding.

The US is currently going to massively change their health care system and if the legislation should be sustained it will be the last big change they will ever see - until, like our system will do, it gets too large and creaky and nears collapse under economic ruin.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Pliny