Bernie’s brand of socialism is more social democratic, though the terms are already so watered down and abused to be of any use. — NOS4A2

True, and yet you say:

One can simply observe the failed states of that ideology throughout history. — NOS4A2

So tell us: how are you defining "socialism"? And please inform us why Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states.

Aren't people voting for Bernie because of the direction they HOPE it puts the country on? It is about sending a message, not actually believing the USA will be just like Denmark in 3 years. — ZhouBoTong

Excellent point. I think you're exactly right: for millions of Americans, it's not the details. I don't think many people are all that informed. They voted for Obama because he was a charismatic guy, they voted for Trump because they liked a "tough guy" saying things they couldn't say and to piss off the "liberals," they voted for Bush because he was a guy they wanted to have a beer with, etc. If they like the person and they like what he or she says, then that's usually enough. I think Bernie does very well on both counts.

So tell us: how are you defining "socialism"? And please inform us why Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states.

I always use the common definition: social control of the means of production. A socialist state is a state that explicitly seeks to achieve this end. Here’s a list of such states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

The Nordic system is not socialist. Sweden, for example, had to introduce drastic austerity measures and neoliberal reforms during the 90s to get the economy it has today.

I always use the common definition. — NOS4A2

There is no one "common" definition.


"Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth."


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Dictionaries record usage, not how a word should be defined.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Definition

But my definition nonetheless coincides with the first one.

it’s true, the word has little meaning anymore.

Do you still contend that “Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states”?

Dictionaries record usage, not how a word should be defined. — NOS4A2

Usage (eventually, if usage sticks) determines how a word should be defined.

I always use the common definition: social control of the means of production. A socialist state is a state that explicitly seeks to achieve this end. Here’s a list of such states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states — NOS4A2

Good. So now you must realize the stupidity of your original statement? Unless, of course, China, Russia and India are failed states?

The Nordic system is not socialist. — NOS4A2

Ohh, I see. Great -- so then Bernie's policies aren't socialism either. Good to know. So you shouldn't have a problem bringing these clearly non-socialist countries' policies to the US.

Do you still contend that “Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states”?

I never even hinted at such proposition.

Dictionaries record usage, not how a word should be defined. — NOS4A2

I asked specifically for your own definition. You quoted the dictionary. So who's falling into the fallacy you cite?

Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning.

it’s true, the word has little meaning anymore. — NOS4A2

It's interesting you say this, yet you use it in a negative sense in reference to Bernie Sanders' policies -- which aren't unlike Canada, Denmark, etc. Then you say these countries aren't socialist.

So Sanders' proposals are socialist, and socialism (although a meaningless term) "never works," you cite the dictionary and list a Wikipedia article on socialist states, including China (which has greater GDP growth than the US). So China's policies have failed?

You're just confused. Stop using "socialism," and look at the proposals on their now merits. Universal healthcare, free public college, student debt relief, doing something about climate change, etc. These aren't radical Communist ideas. Your dating yourself if you think so.

You're just confused. — Xtrix

He’s not confused, this is just how he plays his game.

Do you still contend that “Denmark and Sweden (among others) are failed states”?

I never even hinted at such proposition. — NOS4A2

You did, by linking Sanders' proposals with "socialism," and going on to say that "socialism" never works. So either Sanders' proposals are more in line with China and India, or else they're like Denmark and Sweden and thus NOT socialism.

Your entire worldview reeks of Cold War paranoia.

I think you're exactly right: for millions of Americans, it's not the details. I don't think many people are all that informed. They voted for Obama because he was a charismatic guy, they voted for Trump because they liked a "tough guy" saying things they couldn't say and to piss off the "liberals," they voted for Bush because he was a guy they wanted to have a beer with, etc. If they like the person and they like what he or she says, then that's usually enough. I think Bernie does very well on both counts. — Xtrix

Exactly right. While Trump has increased the average american's interest in politics (finding that silver lining where I can), it does not mean that people are willing to do serious policy research. Just that they are willing to spend some of their entertainment hours listening to people give their opinions on politics (all 24 hour new stations).

So I find it very weird when people say someone is un-electable due to their economic policies. Oh, people understand economics now do they?!? They all just point to whatever current or historical example proves their point, and ignore every example that is counter to their argument (the smart ones, the less informed don't even know about the counter examples and just eat up each example as 100% proof they are right).

Ohh, I see. Great -- so then Bernie's policies aren't socialism either. Good to know. So you shouldn't have a problem bringing these clearly non-socialist countries' policies to the US.

No, I do have a problem bringing those policies to the US. But mostly I have a problem with Bernie’s statist policies, which differ in many respect to the countries he holds as exemplars. The corporate tax rates in Denmark or Sweden are not that high, but Bernie wants to raise it to 35%. Denmark and Sweden don’t have government-mandated minimum wage; Bernie wants government-mandated minimum wage. His Green New Deal is the thing nightmares are made out of.

Right, because they can’t vote for Sanders. — Wayfarer

Of course they can. The worry is that they won't; that Biden or Bloomberg are closer to Trump than they are to Bernie (I think that that's actually true; there is a huge overlap between the two mainstream parties, and the right wing of the Democrats is closer to the right wing of the Republicans than it is to its own left wing), so people who prefer that kind of candidate would prefer Trump over Bernie.

The thing is, it's not moderate Democrat voters who prefer right-wing Democrats over Bernie, it's establishment Democrat leadership, who presume to speak for moderate Democrat voters, who do. The voters themselves overwhelmingly favor the policis that Bernie pushes, sometimes even when they identify as "conservative". People just don't know what labels mean, and everybody wants to think of themselves as "moderate" and "independent"; but most of those people who think of themselves that way like the things Bernie is proposing, even if they say they don't like "socialism" or the "left wing", etc.

You did, by linking Sanders' proposals with "socialism," and going on to say that "socialism" never works. So either Sanders' proposals are more in line with China and India, or else they're like Denmark and Sweden and thus NOT socialism.

Your entire worldview reeks of Cold War paranoia.

You forgot Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Cambodia, many of which are failed states or in the process of failing. Iraq, Sudan, Libya. Syria. It’s true that China has developed an economically-viable brand of Socialism, but it’s too totalitarian and mercantilist to last.

Once again, only half the story. Plenty of European countries that have less strong unions do use minimum wage laws and they are also considered socially democratic.

Denmark and Sweden have very strong unions with high membership and the collective employment agreements contain minimum wages that are binding on all employees regardless of union membership. Companies cannot go around these unions. So even these countries have effective minimum wages they simply come about in a different way.

Denmark does have minimum wage laws for foreign employees.

Once again, only half the story. Plenty of European countries that have less strong unions do use minimum wage laws and they are also considered socially democratic.

Denmark and Sweden have very strong unions with high membership and the collective employment agreements contain minimum wages that are binding on all employees regardless of union membership. Companies cannot go around these unions. So even these countries have effective minimum wages they simply come about in a different way.

Denmark does have minimum wage laws for foreign employees.

Collective bargaining isn’t the same as government-enforced minimum wage laws, is it?

While Trump has increased the average american's interest in politics (finding that silver lining where I can), it does not mean that people are willing to do serious policy research. Just that they are willing to spend some of their entertainment hours listening to people give their opinions on politics (all 24 hour new stations). — ZhouBoTong

There's a good Atlantic article about this under "political hobbyism." Very interesting. Very scary, too.

So I find it very weird when people say someone is un-electable due to their economic policies. Oh, people understand economics now do they?!? — ZhouBoTong

So very true. It's the same with listening to people go on about climate change. Why is it that just because in their free time they take a slight interest in politics (when they get home from work and not watching "Dancing With The Stars" or the NFL), and hear some talking point from their favorite opinion columnist, talk show host, comedian, or radio commentator, that they feel entitled to spout nonsense online (and in person)?

They would NEVER do this otherwise, in any other domain. You don't hear people claiming to know anything about the latest in physics, for example. Yet if it's been "politicized" and thus included in their daily diet of news consumption/addiction, then suddenly they feel confident in their sudden expertise.

What about a simple "I don't know," or "tell me more about that"? I think it's because, sadly, MOST of this repeating of an opinion that Rush Limbaugh formulated often passes as intelligent, and most people don't even know enough or follow things closely enough to know that it's complete nonsense. So these people get away with it, over and over, in their own social circles and social media bubbles, reinforcing what they believe and convinced that they have a lock on truth and knowledge -- when in reality, they're parroting propaganda.

This happens on the left as well, of course. But the hilarious part is that BOTH sides will accuse the other of this phenomenon -- and both are correct. Yet they can never see it in themselves or from their own "tribe." It's staggering. I think this is another reason to try and discourage people from labeling themselves "liberal" or "conservative," it turns politics into spectator sports, something Americans are all too comfortable with: sitting on the sofa or in a stadium, cheering on a team, and feeling like they're actually a part of any of it -- as the NFL goes makes millions of dollars off of them.

A little long winded. I digress.

:up:

So either Sanders' proposals are more in line with China and India, or else they're like Denmark and Sweden and thus NOT socialism. — Xtrix

:clap:

Somebody needs to STFU. :shade:

No, I do have a problem bringing those policies to the US. But mostly I have a problem with Bernie’s statist policies, which differ in many respect to the countries he holds as exemplars. The corporate tax rates in Denmark or Sweden are not that high, but Bernie wants to raise it to 35%. Denmark and Sweden don’t have government-mandated minimum wage; Bernie wants government-mandated minimum wage. His Green New Deal is the thing nightmares are made out of. — NOS4A2

The corporate tax rate was much higher in another socialist country I can think of...called the United States. We had a pretty good economy back then, too.

Denmark has much higher real wages than the US, whose real wages have stagnated since the 70s.

The rest can be ignored -- you're talking nonsense again and I'm tired of correcting you. I won't even bother to have you elaborate, lest you cite Wikipedia and the dictionary again or, worse, your own memory (Charles the 1st created the post office, after all.) :roll:

Summing up:

Bernie's policies aren't socialism.
You have no clue what socialism is.
His policies are both popular and logical.

It’s true that China has developed an economically-viable brand of Socialism, but it’s too totalitarian and mercantilist to last. — NOS4A2

God you're pathetic.

Love the Limbaugh talking points, though.

Somebody needs to STFU. :shade: — 180 Proof

I agree.

God you're pathetic.

Love the Limbaugh talking points, though.

There’s no need to get salty, comrade.

True. Although it's equally true there "no need to be idiotic."

But when you make no effort to understand the words you're using, repeating conservative talk radio canards, repeatedly mischaracterizing what others are saying...yeah, I eventually lose interest, and respect.

The world is a complex place. "Socialism" has a long history, at least to the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. There have been many branches, some statist some anti-statist. There have been countries who claim to be socialist or communist to appeal to the people, there are countries that have equated both ideologies with evil. Propaganda abounds. But if you study history, you find that since the industrial revolution, most countries have had economies that work essentially for the powerful and "responsible" class of men, whatever they claim to be. Most economies are "mixed" in the sense of having a large degree of state intervention along with privatization and "free markets," etc.

This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, or even liberal or conservative. Try to look beyond these categories, as they're fairly devoid of meaning as well. "Socialism" is no exception.

If you want to discuss Sanders' policies seriously, fine. So far you've said nothing except parrot tired, long-refuted lines that I hear all the time when I put on Fox News. It's cheap, it's easy, and it's exactly what we're getting at here and here. Stop being one of these clowns. Otherwise, don't be surprised when you're (correctly) called pathetic.

Bernie's policies aren't socialism. — Xtrix

But Bernie himself says he's socialist. He says he's against authoritarian communism, which is how the right will try and paint him, but there's no question that he's socialist. Free public health, free public higher education, and forgiveness of student debt, paid for by higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations - those are his policies, and they are socialist. He openly is calling for a political revolution in favour of the majority against corporatism. All strength to him, if he can convert the US of A into Scandanavian-style democratic socialism, then it would be indeed one of the greatest ballot-box revolutions in history.

The corporate tax rates in Denmark or Sweden are not that high, but Bernie wants to raise it to 35%. — NOS4A2

Corporate tax rates were above 45% from just after WW2 until Reagan. Even then they were around 35% until 3 years ago. And America had a stronger economy relative to the world in those days so a high corporate tax rate must be a good thing??

I actually think it is way more complicated than that (in fact, when corporate taxes were at 35%, the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate was below 20%). So raising the corporate tax rate back to where it was 3 years ago (which was EFFECTIVELY the same as it is today) does not seem to be a big issue??

Besides, Denmark and Sweden are mainly populated by Danes and Swedes, who have the massive advantage of generally NOT being American. ;-)

Bernie's policies aren't socialism.
— Xtrix

But Bernie himself says he's socialist. — Wayfarer

No, he says he's a Democratic Socialist. But that means almost nothing outside the context of his proposals. HIs policies aren't socialist (according to our friend), since they're clearly in line with other countries like Canada, Britain, Germany, the Nordic countries, etc.

Free public health, free public higher education, and forgiveness of student debt, paid for by higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations - those are his policies, and they are socialist. — Wayfarer

The word "socialist" is meaningless. Until it's defined you're simply talking nonsense. This is exactly the point I made earlier. If you want to tell us what you mean by socialism, go right ahead.

It's true that those are Sanders' policies. It's also true that he describes himself as a Democratic Socialist. Thus, all we really know is that, to Bernie Sanders, "democratic socialist" means exactly these policies. Fine, so let's look at the policies and ask if they make sense.

Turns out, they do. They're also popular. They'd be very good for the country. If you want to discuss the details about how it's paid for, great. But let's stop wasting time being hung up on this "socialism" nonsense -- because no one knows what the hell they're talking about. It's like the word "God." Seems like it has meaning, but in the end it's so amorphous as to be completely empty. It ends up being a bit of a Rorschach test, telling us more about the psychology of the person who sees "evil" or "good," etc. Most people who associate it only with failed states, Stalin, Mao, etc., probably grew up during the Cold War, for example.

He openly is calling for a political revolution in favour of the majority against corporatism. — Wayfarer

Yeah, so? That could make him a kind of Communist, Anarchist, Marxist, or someone without any label whatsoever who simply recognizes the state of affairs and what needs to be done.

Again, let's move beyond meaningless labeling. Who cares.

The word "socialist" is meaningless. Until it's defined you're simply talking nonsense. This is exactly the point I made earlier. If you want to tell us what you mean by socialism, go right ahead. — Xtrix

I spelled it out, and got a wall of blather in return. You're not being objective. Bernie Sanders is an avowed, self-declared, democratic socialist, and the meaning is as clear as day. Over and out.