On Bernie Sanders

[boo836]

communes can make socialism work, because social responsibility replaces the incentive of cold hard cash. that doesn't really work in cities for the most part.

soviet union fell apart because it was billions in debt, not because of any uprising. if you're arguing that suppressing the people causes the economy to go bad...tell it to China, whose economy is currently off the charts despite them implementing Yelp for people.

could you really list dozens, though? And most importantly, i'll bet you that socialism fails more often. It's just that everyone uses capitalism, because duh.

(s/o venezuela)

All i did was provide examples of examples where socialism certainly did succeed. I wasn't suggesting that communes could replace cities, as i think we can both agree that cooperative businesses and such would obviously fare better.

I wasn't suggesting that suppression results in economic instability either. But for obvious reasons acts of mass murder and genocide like the Holodomor shouldn't be considered to be economic failures (though certain famines under Mao certainly were).

Could i list dozens? Absolutely. There are innumerous famines, enslavements, wars, and instances of heinous corruption that wouldn't take place without capitalism. Hell, Venezuela's economic crisis came about from American sanctions and cooperation between private retailers.

 

[tehy]

All i did was provide examples of examples where socialism certainly did succeed. I wasn't suggesting that communes could replace cities, as i think we can both agree that cooperative businesses and such would obviously fare better.

I wasn't suggesting that suppression results in economic instability either. But for obvious reasons acts of mass murder and genocide like the Holodomor shouldn't be considered to be economic failures (though certain famines under Mao certainly were).

Could i list dozens? Absolutely. There are innumerous famines, enslavements, wars, and instances of heinous corruption that wouldn't take place without capitalism. Hell, Venezuela's economic crisis came about from American sanctions and cooperation between private retailers.

But my main issue is, I just don't think socialism itself works in a city.

Moreover, why are the largest failures of socialism / communism (let's just call it 'command economy'), soviet russia and cuba, off-limits?

I don't think capitalism causes famines. Enslavements, absolutely, that's a problem that capitalism creates more than any other system, though we've gotten pretty good at dealing with it. Wars...eh, it's not like we haven't had wars for centuries anyhow. The elites used to enrich themselves by taking all the jewels and gold, now they do it by selling weapons and moving into the ruined countries afterwards. As for corruption, a command economy provides enormous power to the government, which is a direct cause of corruption - power corrupts, after all.

 

[veiva]

1) I hope you don't mind me asking what planet you live on. 2) American politics are not 'conservative' compared to the rest of the West, considering Canada's had Harper for almost a decade, Britain's had Blair and Cameron, Ireland's been stuck with the right wing for a while, France had Sarkozy (and arguably Hollande's more right wing than his party name suggests), and god knows that Japan, New Zealand and Australia (whatever, they're pretty similar to Western nations) have been dominated by reactionary, neoliberal politics.

3) Sanders absolutely does not want to change the status quo, at least as far as the larger picture is concerned. Fact of the matter is that he still backs an imperialist agenda, be it in Venezuela, Palestine, Kosovo or Yemen, and his "get big money out of politics" rhetoric isn't particularly convincing when he hasn't really elaborated on how he's going to take it all down. Dunno about you, but I've heard that schpeel before, and since Sanders doesn't want to replace capitalism, it's hard to imagine that his reforms will solve issues inherent to the capitalist system.

4) Lol@ 'socialism doesn't work in practice'. Last time i checked, the rural communes of Spain had it going pretty well for themselves until the fascists took over. The Soviet Union and Cuba aren't winning any awards on ethical practices, but you'd have to be pretty fucking ignorant to suggest that they weren't going pretty strong until the Cold War. Even then, you're making sweeping generalizations about an umbrella term, and it doesn't change that for every economic failure of socialism, i could list dozens for capitalistic systems. So please, don't use that lazy argument.

1) You can keep the pointless comments to yourself. It serves no purpose and makes you look like an asshole.

2) You cited conservative politicians/governments (that, for the record, are still more sane than the Tea Party and even many of the GOP). Cool. The problem with the United States is an incredibly large conservative voting base that makes Western conservatives look liberal. And unfortunately, many of these voters can be found on either side of the aisle. The American right takes many topics to a comedic extreme. There's simply too many pants-on-head conservative policies fully embraced by many conservative Americans. Legislation against evolution/climate change/science in general and privatization of schools with voucher programs, a bizarre fixation that the United States is "a Christian nation" and the insanity that comes with it, pro-business legislation that hurts the consumer/citizen, "supply-side economics" and the often quoted idea of "trickle down economics," increasingly draconian mass surveillance measures and other authoritarian policies, misogynistic policies aimed to legislate women's autonomy, hatred of the poor/unfortunate (i.e., anyone who uses any kind of welfare service), anti-LGBT+ legislation, and on and on...

3) You can keep coming up with some arbitrary "status quo" definition, but the majority of Sanders's platform is contrarian to the existing political system of the United States. I'm sure you can find some skewed policy you disagree with Sanders on that he'd want to remain the same, but he is very antagonistic of the institutional issues that many existing politicians survive on. And yes, he has made positions available on how he'd handle issues like campaign finance. Your apathy has no bearing on this.

4) Then I'll clarify: workers owning the means of production doesn't work on non-local scales. It glosses over human behavior. Pretty much any economic system works pretty well in tiny communities because otherwise there's immediate consequences...

There are innumerous famines, enslavements, wars, and instances of heinous corruption that wouldn't take place without capitalism.

What do you mean these sort of acts wouldn't have taken place without capitalism? These were all problems since recorded history, and will continue for a long time (perhaps forever, if you're cynical).

 

[boo836]

But my main issue is, I just don't think socialism itself works in a city.

Moreover, why are the largest failures of socialism / communism (let's just call it 'command economy'), soviet russia and cuba, off-limits?

I don't think capitalism causes famines. Enslavements, absolutely, that's a problem that capitalism creates more than any other system, though we've gotten pretty good at dealing with it. Wars...eh, it's not like we haven't had wars for centuries anyhow. The elites used to enrich themselves by taking all the jewels and gold, now they do it by selling weapons and moving into the ruined countries afterwards. As for corruption, a command economy provides enormous power to the government, which is a direct cause of corruption - power corrupts, after all.

If you're referring to the intentional famines being off limits, it's because they weren't economic failures. It's not a fuckup when you succeed lol. With Cuba, there's the issue of THE REGION'S BIGGEST ECONOMY PLACING SANCTIONS ON IT FOR FOUR DECADES. Can you elaborate on why hierarchal business structures are somehow necessary for cities to function?

Famines absolutely do occur thanks to capitalism. If people starve in places with accessible markets, then the system that necessitates such extreme poverty ought to be blamed.

1) You can keep the pointless comments to yourself. It serves no purpose and makes you look like an asshole.

2) You cited conservative politicians/governments (that, for the record, are still more sane than the Tea Party and even many of the GOP). Cool. The problem with the United States is an incredibly large conservative voting base that makes Western conservatives look liberal. And unfortunately, many of these voters can be found on either side of the aisle. The American right takes many topics to a comedic extreme. There's simply too many pants-on-head conservative policies fully embraced by many conservative Americans. Legislation against evolution/climate change/science in general and privatization of schools with voucher programs, a bizarre fixation that the United States is "a Christian nation" and the insanity that comes with it, pro-business legislation that hurts the consumer/citizen, "supply-side economics" and the often quoted idea of "trickle down economics," increasingly draconian mass surveillance measures and other authoritarian policies, misogynistic policies aimed to legislate women's autonomy, hatred of the poor/unfortunate (i.e., anyone who uses any kind of welfare service), anti-LGBT+ legislation, and on and on...

3) You can keep coming up with some arbitrary "status quo" definition, but the majority of Sanders's platform is contrarian to the existing political system of the United States. I'm sure you can find some skewed policy you disagree with Sanders on that he'd want to remain the same, but he is very antagonistic of the institutional issues that many existing politicians survive on. And yes, he has made positions available on how he'd handle issues like campaign finance. Your apathy has no bearing on this.

4) Then I'll clarify: workers owning the means of production doesn't work on non-local scales. It glosses over human behavior. Pretty much any economic system works pretty well in tiny communities because otherwise there's immediate consequences...



What do you mean these sort of acts wouldn't have taken place without capitalism? These were all problems since recorded history, and will continue for a long time (perhaps forever, if you're cynical).

1) don't blame me when you're the one saying that the America is somehow more "conservative" (which is a relative term whose meaning changes by region and over time) to the rest of the West. I'm just pointing out that such statements are absurd.

2) Canada's PC party is literally no different than the GOP. Indeed, I'd argue that the core of the party is probably more extreme than the GOP in many instances. Fascist parties and organizations like the BNP or Britain First are essentially European counterparts to Tea Party organizations. Australia and New Zealand are pretty much in the same boat as Canada, except they kick the shit out of refugees and molest their kids.

I wish those last parts were hyperbole.

3) I'm talking about Sanders maintaining the capitalist system. Maybe I'm at fault for not clarifying. I apologize. I'll read over the new stances on campaign reform and edit with criticism if i have any.

4) [citation needed]. Seriously, care to elaborate? As for "human nature", there's really no such thing. This ain't 1860 dude, humanity isn't defined as having specific flaws in its character.

5) what I'm saying is that not only do those things occur under capitalism more (socialism by definition cannot have slaves), but that these issues are inherent to capitalism. Even if all states were to dissolve overnight and become a Rothbardian hellhole, we'd still be fighting for regional monopolies.

 

[tehy]

If you're referring to the intentional famines being off limits, it's because they weren't economic failures. It's not a fuckup when you succeed lol. With Cuba, there's the issue of THE REGION'S BIGGEST ECONOMY PLACING SANCTIONS ON IT FOR FOUR DECADES. Can you elaborate on why hierarchal business structures are somehow necessary for cities to function?

Famines absolutely do occur thanks to capitalism. If people starve in places with accessible markets, then the system that necessitates such extreme poverty ought to be blamed.

What do you mean by 'intentional famines'? When was there a time when there was a ton of food available or a ton of fertile land without food being grown on it, but then everyone starved? If there's really a famine, then food prices go up until the stores are willing to sell, people buy the food, problem more or less solved. Alternately, there's a legitimate famine due to crop diseases or terrible weather, which is more or less a feature of human history and nothing to do with capitalism.

With Cuba: OK. What about Russia, Venezuela, and pre-capitalist China?

Well, a city-type economy needs corporations (at the very least, even command economies have them). These tend to be very badly run when controlled by the government, so either they fall apart or they gradually suck up more and more government subsidies until the system all crashes (see: Greece).

also, are you really trying to front like human nature isn't a thing? People act in simple, logical, defined ways. if humanity doesn't have simple flaws in its character, then why does history repeat?

Campaign reform is the biggest issue in this election, personally. Sure, politicians are sleazy, but the current system more or less mandates that you take money from big business, and then do what they say so you can keep getting that money, otherwise you can't put up enough ads and hire enough campaign workers and oh look you didn't get re-elected.

 

[vonFiedler]

1) don't blame me when you're the one saying that the America is somehow more "conservative" (which is a relative term whose meaning changes by region and over time) to the rest of the West. I'm just pointing out that such statements are absurd.

9/10 Europeans posting about it on this board have said as much time and time again. I'm surprised no one else has weighed in on it. I'm only taking their word for it, but it does makes you look a bit daft to be so aggressive about it.

 

[Layell]

2) Canada's PC party is literally no different than the GOP. Indeed, I'd argue that the core of the party is probably more extreme than the GOP in many instances. Fascist parties and organizations like the BNP or Britain First are essentially European counterparts to Tea Party organizations. Australia and New Zealand are pretty much in the same boat as Canada, except they kick the shit out of refugees and molest their kids.

considering Canada's had Harper for almost a decade

Lol I have to call out your stuff on Harper.

Harper rode in on a merger between the two fractured right wing parties of Reform and Conservatives. The Liberals practically gave them the election with a sponsorship scandal and 12 years of rule. Not helped by the fact that Prime Minister Paul Martin practically wanted to poop on Jean Chretiens legacy as PM. Harper never got over 40% of the popular vote, despite once winning a majority (our system is baaad).

No Conservative party in modern times has opted to abolish single payer health care, nor outlaw gay marriage, or abortion. Harper paid lip service to these, but nothing more. In the recent election the percent of people who voted skyrocketed and threw the book at Harper. He tried to harness immigration and Muslim hate, and it backfired
spectacularly. Don't compare us to the US.

In general the US is spectacularly to the right, especially when Sanders, and even Obama have been called a socialist by the right-wing media machine. Even a lot of Democrats have been centre-right.

 

[Deck Knight]

I like how the forum voting majority support to Bernie Sanders is lecturing others on sane policy. Then again they're also handwaving systematic slavery, brutal genocides, voter suppression, and human rights violations committed by Socialists and Communists because "OMG CAPITALISM (this message sent from my iPhone.)" Twilight Zone Stuff.

Even $18 Trillion dollars of GDP isn't enough of Other People's Money to fund Bernie Sanders's insane laundry list.

Ted Cruz for President. You need a Reagan to fix a Carter.
We're the oldest continuous Constitutional system on the planet.
It's time for a president that loves our country for that fact instead of hates us for it.

 

[vonFiedler]

Then again they're also handwaving systematic slavery, brutal genocides, voter suppression, and human rights violations committed by Socialists and Communists because "OMG CAPITALISM (this message sent from my iPhone.)" Twilight Zone Stuff.

There's nothing to handwave. Socialist in name only Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with any non-US regime any more than Ted Cruz is responsible for the trail of tears.

 

[Deck Knight]

There's nothing to handwave. Socialist in name only Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with any non-US regime any more than Ted Cruz is responsible for the trail of tears.

Well, there was The Sandinista Thing. Although it looks like he only supported them with rhetoric, not like 'ol Bill de Blasio actively helping them.

In 1985 he attended the celebrations marking the sixth anniversary of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. “In a letter addressed to the people of Nicaragua, penned in conjunction with that trip, Sanders denounced the activities of the Reagan administration, which he said was under the influence of large corporations,” the Guardian notes. “In the long run, I am certain that you will win,” Sanders wrote, “and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened.” (The Sandinistas were ousted by Nicaragua’s voters in 1990).

But no, Bernie is not Stalin or Mao or Pol-Pot or Ho Chi Minh or Castro or Various DPRK Kim-Jongs, nor Mussolini or that National Socialist Worker Party Guy associated with Godwin's Law. He's just got pretty poor taste.

 

[skies]

I like how the forum voting majority support to Bernie Sanders is lecturing others on sane policy. Then again they're also handwaving systematic slavery, brutal genocides, voter suppression, and human rights violations committed by Socialists and Communists because "OMG CAPITALISM (this message sent from my iPhone.)" Twilight Zone Stuff.

Even $18 Trillion dollars of GDP isn't enough of Other People's Money to fund Bernie Sanders's insane laundry list.

Ted Cruz for President. You need a Reagan to fix a Carter.
We're the oldest continuous Constitutional system on the planet.
It's time for a president that loves our country for that fact instead of hates us for it.

Ted Cruz is awful. Wants to defend Planned Parenthood and "fight for traditional marriage." That's definitely not someone I want in office.

 

[Deck Knight]

Ted Cruz is awful. Wants to defend Planned Parenthood and "fight for traditional marriage." That's definitely not someone I want in office.

Why should a Shop of Horrors literally enducing high-risk abortions to pain-capable babies in order to maximize the retail value of their illegally sold body parts be given public subsidy? What is the moral argument for that?

Ted's policy is to leave the definition of a societal institution that predates the state, which is necessary to the rearing of children and protection of families, to the 50 states to define (the Federal Constitution being silent on it), rather than letting judges decide sodomy and procreation are equal acts on their whim.

Given that every society is demonstrably less free when homosexuality is celebrated rather than ignored, I'll just have to disagree with you on that. I find sharing your lusts grating just as you would find "I'm Deck Knight, Straight American" annoying if that is how I started my every social interaction.

 

[Bughouse]

"Lol"

 

[vonFiedler]

Given that every society is demonstrably less free when homosexuality is celebrated rather than ignored, I'll just have to disagree with you on that. I find sharing your lusts grating just as you would find "I'm Deck Knight, Straight American" annoying if that is how I started my every social interaction.

I don't know how you can possibly demonstrate what you claim, but I'd rather you start every sentence with "I'm Deck Knight, Straight American" than be an openly homophobic dick

((Not an invitation for this thread to become about homophobia and gay rights))

 

[sunny004]

1) Don't mean to mini mod but I'm pretty sure this was a Bernie thread. Maybe we should start a US politics debate thread or something so people can more openly discuss their views.

2) It's too late at night for me to thoroughly fact check it, but I'm pretty sure during the end of the 19th century until around the 60's and 70's, while abortions were illegal in the US, wealthy pregnant women traveled to Cuba in order to undergo an abortion. Wouldn't de-funding Planned Parenthood cause the same thing to happen? (Except maybe they would go to somewhere in Europe, etc.) All that would REALLY do is deny abortions to lower/middle class women, which doesn't achieve your end goal.

BTW I'm pro-gay marriage and pro choice, I really don't think non-gay men should be able to decide what LGBTs are allowed to do with their lives, and/or make the choice about what women can do with their bodies. (And before you say anything, know that 80% of congress is male, and less than 1% of the same congress is LGBT.

EDIT: Deck Knight I'm pretty sure that story about selling fetal tissue was disproved multiple times. Double check your facts and please give us a link to a source if you disagree.

 

[vonFiedler]

1) Don't mean to mini mod but I'm pretty sure this was a Bernie thread. Maybe we should start a US politics debate thread or something so people can more openly discuss their views.

It is bordering on a circle-jerk to talk about one politician and bring up none of their opponents. We just can't get derailed too much talking about issues that aren't relevant to that.

 

[Trax]

I voted Trump in the poll, not because I think he'd be good, but I just want to see what happens.

Most of Sanders ideas aren't bad, but nobody is getting a capital gains tax hike past congress without an armed rebellion so all tax discussion is fucking pointless.

 

[DM]

But no, Bernie is not Stalin or Mao or Pol-Pot or Ho Chi Minh or Castro or Various DPRK Kim-Jongs, nor Mussolini or that National Socialist Worker Party Guy associated with Godwin's Law. He's just got pretty poor taste.

None of them are or were true Socialists/Communists either, because money is still an object in their economies. Bernie Sanders is obviously not a Socialist, but rather a Social Democrat with ideas that are simply further left than most others today.

 

[Son of Disaster]

Even $18 Trillion dollars of GDP isn't enough of Other People's Money to fund Bernie Sanders's insane laundry list.

A lot of Bernie's ideas could easily come from existing money. We already have vast social programs in the U.S. receiving huge funding but applied in less than optimal ways (our current healthcare system and programs come to mind). We like to talk about how crazy socialist Bernie is while ignoring our existing inefficient social programs. If we could ever reign in the absurd amount of waste too we'd be gravy but that'll likely never happen.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...d-to-make-public-college-tuition-free/282803/

 

[tehy]

A lot of Bernie's ideas could easily come from existing money. We already have vast social programs in the U.S. receiving huge funding but applied in less than optimal ways (our current healthcare system and programs come to mind). We like to talk about how crazy socialist Bernie is while ignoring our existing inefficient social programs. If we could ever reign in the absurd amount of waste too we'd be gravy but that'll likely never happen.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...d-to-make-public-college-tuition-free/282803/

so we Could pay for college, but only if we got rid of healthcare? where do I sign up..?

anyhow i sincerely doubt there's 18 trillion dollars worth of waste, but even if there were, all politicians promise to get rid of waste and it just never seems to happen, and sure part of that is corruption but at what point do you acknowledge that maybe it's just difficult? especially as any given president needs to work with his congress.

but moot point because come on, do you really think there's 18 trillion dollars (1.8 a year) of waste alone?

edit:

Well, if you're including public waste... we could also cut the waste of buying too-expensive cars, for example.

From what I've heard a big part of this is stricter FDA testing (driving up drug prices) as well as the costs of dealing with many insurers.

Still, that's fairly impressive.

 

[billymills]

The united states spends about 3 trillion a year on health care. (1) (2)

If this was reduced to the per-capita rates of countries like France or Canada (still much higher than fully-public Great Britain), that would mean a savings of 1.5 trillion dollars a year. No I don't think Bernie will be able to completely restructure the health care industry, but yes I do believe there is 1.8 trillon dollars of waste a year.

Note that these numbers include public and private expenditure, so this wouldn't strictly be a budget cut either.

 

[Minwu]

Hospital chains and specialist doctors charge too much and make too much money in the United States. The first step in bringing health care to the poor may be nationalization.

 

[Son of Disaster]

Hospital chains and specialist doctors charge too much and make too much money in the United States. The first step in bringing health care to the poor may be nationalization.

A lot of what docs have to charge is for insane malpractice insurance. Its the reason chains are so prevalent and family docs are dying off, they can't survive outside of larger organizations. Edit: You also get charged a lot to cover the people that can't or don't pay for services. Also a link or two (1)(dos)

so we Could pay for college, but only if we got rid of healthcare? where do I sign up..?

Still, that's fairly impressive.

No the point of the article was that with federal loans and Pell Grants and everything else we could already fund free Public College. Also this isn't what Bernie is proposing, I was just making the point that we already have the means to convert half-baked programs into actually useful programs. According to this we are planning on spending more money on healthcare than any other block of the budget. And as Billy Mays pointed out our dollars are not well spent in current U.S. healthcare. There's literally no way we ever return to truly private, free market health care so why not quit dumping tax money in so-so programs and spend our efforts on good "socialized" medicine.

Here's Bernie's rough proposals for where the money will come from for his ideas https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
Just to try and add to the discussion

 

[die strong]

College is a complete racket. Do not go. I am dead serious.

Amen

 

[Cresselia~~]

The united states spends about 3 trillion a year on health care. (1) (2)

If this was reduced to the per-capita rates of countries like France or Canada (still much higher than fully-public Great Britain), that would mean a savings of 1.5 trillion dollars a year. No I don't think Bernie will be able to completely restructure the health care industry, but yes I do believe there is 1.8 trillon dollars of waste a year.

Note that these numbers include public and private expenditure, so this wouldn't strictly be a budget cut either.

I guess no one has the guts to be like Japan-- hiring obese employees is illegal in Japan.
And they draw the mark of "obese" as people with a waist circumference of over 40 inches.
This is quite over the top though, and if USA does that, lots of people will protest.

But I suppose USA can be like Sweden-- tax for fatty meats or other fatty foods.

If you are obese, you will have a lot more health problems than healthy people, so your country actually would need to spend more on you.
It's not fat shaming because it's a legitimate reason.