So, you say that you can't see Sanders winning, but you also can't see anyone better positioned to beat Trump. Which seems to imply, you think Trump will be re-elected. (I must admit, I am now becoming resigned to this. I've been railing against Trump on this forum, and to anyone who would listen, since he became a candidate, and as I've said, I think he's a threat to the rule of law, to the Constitution, and also a disgrace to the office. But with the splintering of the Democratic effort, I can't see how Trump is going to be beaten, so I'm trying to learn to shut up about it. The only saving grace is that Trump is so incompetent he couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel so the main damage he will do is 'bull in a china shop' rather than 'Machiavellian scheming' - oh, and also by being easy for the Right to manipulate for their interests.)

Bernie is an avowed socialist. Straight from the horse’s mouth. That was my only point. You don’t have to look at the countless other leaders and states who have claimed the same, but because there is always a trail of death and tyranny behind them should at least be cause for scepticism when someone once again picks up the mantle. I doubt your equivocations would occur if Bernie called himself a fascist, for instance. — NOS4A2

Let's at least be very clear: Bernie is an avowed "Democratic Socialist." It sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but it happens to matter in this case. Why? Because Bernie, as anyone would expect, does not identify with the state owning the means of production or any Soviet-type government. He's not in favor of dictatorship or authoritarianism. What Bernie means is a label for New Deal style policies. That's all. Given that, any way you feel about socialism, its history and track record, is already moot -- why? Because that's not what Bernie is talking about. That's precisely why he adds the "democratic" part, to differentiate from Russian and Cuba and others.

That being said, your assessment of the history of socialism is itself a little strange. Of course there's been a trail of death and tyranny. But that's any form of government, ideology, religion, etc. That's capitalism too -- FAR more deadly than socialism. The countries who have professed to be capitalists are responsible for huge atrocities for centuries now. But doing a body count is a silly way to proceed anyway.

Lastly, I'm not "equivocating" anything. I'm saying Bernie should be judged based on his policies and proposals, almost all of which have majority support in this country. They're therefore not "radical" or socialist pipe dreams. They are what's done in many countries in the world. They're also richt in line with our own history: the FDR era, through Eisenhower and even Nixon. So getting caught up in a label is useless -- just look at the policies, and you'll see what Bernie means by "Democratic Socialism." Don't agree with the policies? Fine, then give a sensible argument for why they don't work. Waving your hand and saying "it's socialist"isn't an argument.

I think swinging the country in the direction of a new New Deal is a very smart choice and very much needed, after years of neoliberal policy -- the results we see all around us. If you really feel we're (the working and middle classes) better off now than we were in the 50s and 60s under New Deal policies, that's a debate worth having.

Those policies actually fit the technical definition of social democracy (which is not a kind of socialism), not democratic socialism, or any kind of socialism. They have nothing to do with capital being owned by those who use it, they just provide a band-aid over the worst excesses of capitalism. — Pfhorrest

You're on to a much deeper issue, which is that even Bernie's policies don't go far enough. But since Bernie himself is considered so extreme, it's very hard to have that conversation. It's more worthwhile to fight for his policies. But when you say "band-aid," you're exactly right. That's what the New Deal, laws and regualtions of the 60s, etc., were really doing. They rearranged the rules, made the game less tilted, but continue to play the game nonetheless.

The real, long-term and overarching goal should be the destruction of capitalism altogether. I advocate for anarcho-syndicalism pro tem. Then I would argue in the space opened by Nietzsche regarding the distant future. But as you can see, we'd be getting into a more academic and philosophical discussion rather than a political one grounded in the real world of current affairs.

Still, your point is an important one and worth keeping in mind.

What do you make of Krugman's position vs. Wolff's? I'll link below, if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6J3ROV4IPc

That was interesting. There is a lot in there I agree with. But they go much farther than I...I just want a more interested voter (not just interested in having their opinions agreed with). They want everyone to actually engage with their community. I am way too socially uncomfortable for that sort of behavior :grimace: But I can appreciate its usefulness and support those actions when I can. I can admit that I would definitely count as a "hobbyist" based on their description. — ZhouBoTong

And me as well. We're in the same boat, really. I don't go out giving talks or anything. But among friends, family, friends-of-friends, coworkers, and even sometimes strangers, I like having those conversations. Not to mention online. I would like to be more involved in an organization where I actually work with others in pursuit of political goals. The Sunrise Movement and other large, national organizations and movements is interesting and all of that, but I think I'd be more comfortable locally -- and that's kind of the point of the article anyway, in the sense that this is where everything starts.

But you're absolutely right: being interested, informed, and willing to have the conversations with other people in a rational way, are all necessary. Even THAT would be sufficient to change things, too, because in that case we'd be voting very differently. Unfortunately we're being indoctrinated in all kinds of ways, and having our consent "manufactured," to a large degree. How to overcome this is an interesting topic.

Social Democrats are totally different from Marxist-(Leninists). They don't want to stop capitalism. Their idea is only to milk it a bit more and have this "socialism-lite". And if you listen to Bernie, that is exactly what he's up to. — ssu

Basically, yes.

Let's at least be very clear: Bernie is an avowed "Democratic Socialist." It sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but it happens to matter in this case. Why? Because Bernie, as anyone would expect, does not identify with the state owning the means of production or any Soviet-type government. He's not in favor of dictatorship or authoritarianism. What Bernie means is a label for New Deal style policies. That's all. Given that, any way you feel about socialism, its history and track record, is already moot -- why? Because that's not what Bernie is talking about. That's precisely why he adds the "democratic" part, to differentiate from Russian and Cuba and others.

Alright before we begin this discussion I'll just let you know that I would really never vote for Bernie. I'm just interested in the actual contents of his beliefs. From what I know - off the top of my head - he's said favorable things about Castro and the USSR, and he favored nationalizing.... some industry in the 1980s and doing so in a manner without even compensating the leaders of those industries.

Again, not looking for a debate here just an honest picture of what Bernie believes. Something intuitively strikes me as a wrong here when you try to cast him as an FDR style Democrat (who I still dislike) when he's explicitly used the terms democratic socialist.

Bizarre the way Americans talk about Sanders. He's a middle-of-the-road Social Democrat advocating for stuff that most of the developed world takes for granted. That's about it. The rest is figments of diseased political imaginations.

But oh no, he said Castro did something good. Yes, he did. He drastically improved literacy levels, for example. Obama said it too.That doesn't make Castro mother Theresa, but a thing he didn't do was massacre millions of Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians or sponsor murder and torture across Central and South America etc etc. Again, nuts that Americans are delusional enough to assume moral superiority for their leaders. Wake the fuck up and read some history.

Baden, can we talk about issues which are actually relevant in 2020 as opposed to Nixon bombing Cambodia which was like.... 1972ish? Or Reagan funding the Sandinistas in the 1980s? I mean I'm fine with having a discussion about it, but it's just not that relevant to the issues to the 2020 elections.

What's relevant to now is the utter stupidity and hypocrisy of objecting to Sanders on the basis he once said something good about Castro. It's contemptibly idiotic on just about every level imaginable.

I'm probably just getting bored of all the political retards shitting massive turds of ignorance all over this, the Trump discussion, and other threads, and overreacting on that basis. Please continue on saying dumb stuff. You will never be alone here.

It's not just that.

In any case I'm on the other side of the political spectrum than Sanders so it's no surprise I wouldn't vote for him (although I do favor his more liberal drug policies).

I was just talking to Xtrix about getting an honest picture of his views purely out of interest.

See above.

If there is no socialism in Bernie then why does he call himself a democratic socialist? It boggles the mind. He's either wrong or he's a socialist. So which is it? And adding "democratic" to the term socialism doesn’t make me feel any better, any more than adding “democratic” to the People's Republic of Korea.

But call Bernie what you want. I’ve already stated his policies reek of the big government, high-tax reforms we’ve been getting for the better part of a century.

I think swinging the country in the direction of a new New Deal is a very smart choice and very much needed, after years of neoliberal policy -- the results we see all around us. If you really feel we're (the working and middle classes) better off now than we were in the 50s and 60s under New Deal policies, that's a debate worth having.

Why would we need another New Deal if the first one was so great? The government’s power was greatly increased and that has not subsided. We still have social security, Fannie Mae, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the National Labor Relations Board, federal agricultural subsidies.

Trump on Kim Jong Un, the hardest of hardline communist dictators and one of the worst human rights abusers in history. A guy who regularly tortures political opponents to death and imprisons their children for life:

"We fell in love.”

"He likes me, I like him. Some people say I shouldn’t like him. Why shouldn’t I like him?”

"He's... a real leader."

B... But Sanders once said Castro raised literacy levels! :scream:

I give up.

What do you make of Krugman's position vs. Wolff's? I'll link below, if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6J3ROV4IPc — Xtrix

They both sound mostly correct and not in contradiction to me. The places I see them disagreeing are on whether Bernie's use of the term socialism is politically expedient (they both seem to agree that he's actually not, though Wolff points out that his use of it is in line with an existing sense of it, but to my knowledge that sense is only used by ignorant American capitalists, not self-identified socialists); what is "centrist" or not; and whether Bernie's Medicare-for-All plan is the best plan.

On the first issue of whether Bernie's use of the term socialism is politically expedient, I'm ambivalent about it. Republicans would call him "socialist" anyway, they would call any policies like his "socialist", and because they control the propaganda machine, that's what increasingly many Americans think "socialism" is, and increasingly think is actually a good thing not a bad thing. So it seems like just pragmatic identification with the label people use to mean what he is for, to me. It does come with a bunch of pejorative baggage, but since the label would be applied to him anyway, I don't really see the harm (and maybe even some benefit) in owning the word. Reclaiming it if you will. "We're here, we're 'socialist', get used to it."

On the second issue, "centrism" is relative to one's Overton window, and they clearly have different ones. The mainstream American Overton window is from Republicans on the right to establishment Democratic party leadership on the left, so within that window, establishment Democrats are left, and "centrists" are somewhere between them and Republicans. By that framing, Krugman is clearly "far left". But there are plenty of views even further left than that, that have long since been popular in Europe and are increasingly popular in America today, and from that point of view Krugman and establishment Democrats are "centrist". I personally consider even that further-left viewpoint "centrist", in a good way -- there is still further left than that that one could go, but that would be too far left -- but even from that far-widened-to-the-left Overton window I think in, I kinda dislike this attacking of establishment Democrats and "centrists" from the left. I'm a big-tent kind of guy, and I think anyone to the left of the current center of power should be on the same side for so long as it takes to pull that center of power leftward, and only as people in that big tent start to fall right of the new center of power should they be attacked from those further left of them.



As for Medicare For All, I am fine with Bernie's proposal, but I don't think he's going to get it done exactly as he wants it (because other politicians will stand in the way and at best some kind of compromise will be made), and I don't think it's the ideal solution either, either pragmatically or ideologically. I'm a kind of libertarian socialist, so while I'm okay with a limited state putting limits on capitalism to pro tem, I prefer to keep as much choice in the hands of people as possible while doing so. My ideal health care solution (for within the present political system, not in my utopian world) would be to give everyone a stipend of however much Medicare costs per person, charge all Medicare users that much to be on the program (so those who are currently on it see no net change), and allow anyone to buy into it with that stipend, or to spend that on an alternative if they really want; and then make Medicare good enough that most people wouldn't want to, if it's not already. Halfway between a public option and Medicare-for-All, I guess, because private insurance is not banned and nobody has to buy into Medicare, but everyone receives public funding for their insurance and anybody can buy into Medicare. Possibly make Medicare the default, with easy opt-out, so everybody who currently has no insurance just automatically gets Medicare for free, but anybody who really wants to keep their current insurance can opt out of that and spend their stipend on their current insurance instead.

Bizarre the way Americans talk about Sanders. He's a middle-of-the-road Social Democrat advocating for stuff that most of the developed world takes for granted. That's about it. The rest is figments of diseased political imaginations. — Baden

But oh no, he said Castro did something good. Yes, he did. He drastically improved literacy levels, for example. Obama said it too.That doesn't make Castro mother Theresa, but a thing he didn't do was massacre millions of Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians or sponsor murder and torture across Central and South America etc etc. Again, nuts that Americans are delusional enough to assume moral superiority for their leaders. Wake the fuck up and read some history. — Baden

Trump on Kim Jong Un, a hardline communist dictator and one of the worst human rights abusers in history. A guy who regularly tortures political opponents to death and imprisons their children for life:

"We fell in love.”

"He likes me, I like him. Some people say I shouldn’t like him. Why shouldn’t I like him?”

"He's... a real leader."

B... But Sanders once said Castro raised literacy levels! :scream:

I give up. — Baden

The Chairman of the Fed and the Treasury Secretary asking for a bail-out doesn't make sense. — Xtrix

You're clueless.

No one who was caught off-guard by underestimating voter turnout or Trump's ability to secure enough support to beat Clinton will allow that shit to happen again, assuming that their worldview is much the same as it was four years back. Give Sanders the national spotlight. Place him on stage with Donald John Trump, and watch school start for all those willing to learn.

The most pleasant slaughter that one may ever see.

I cannot wait. — creativesoul

Well that all sounds reasonable and I certainly hope you are right. I suppose I appreciate the optimism either way :smile: And no matter what a person's political beliefs are, a Trump vs Sanders debate should sound like a lot of fun :grin:

being easy for the Right to manipulate for their interests — Wayfarer

And this is of course a huge problem which, even without global warming to worry about, will saddle the next generations of citizens with problems.

Running winning candidates isn't enough (though that is necessary). Several basic reforms are needed:

One, the members of the Supreme Court need to be rotated more often -- which means ending life-time appointments. Fixed terms would solve part of the problem. The court IS POLITICAL. It has to be knocked off its pseudo-august pedestal.

Two, eliminate the Electoral College. I realize it has a point, but direct election by the citizenry works for all the other elected positions.

Three, we need a genuine working class party -- not slightly more and slightly less conservative parties serving the interest of the ruling class.

Four, campaign financing must be socialized. Having someone with $30-40 billion dollars financing his own campaign (Bloomberg) and others scrounging for pocket change is obviously a crooked game. The conservative court laid down Citizens United for a ruling class reason. Citizens United needs to be undone.

We need to repair the gross economic inequalities which prevail in the United States. (Other countries will have to deal with their inequalities.). This means taxing wealth at a high rate. Maybe it should be enshrined in the constitution, so it can't be changed easily. The wealthy stayed wealthy even during periods of high taxation.

The Sunrise Movement and other large, national organizations and movements is interesting and all of that, but I think I'd be more comfortable locally -- and that's kind of the point of the article anyway, in the sense that this is where everything starts. — Xtrix

I far prefer local pushes to get the vote out over things like The Sunrise Movement (despite me agreeing with their overall aims). Large federal lobbying pushes require resources that the masses don't have access to, so they always seem to only represent a tiny fraction of the population (I understand lobbying is supposedly VERY democratic, but it just seems to limit the power of my vote so...?). While I agree with the Sunrise Movement's goals, they are using methods similar to the NRA or whatever the hell Grover Norquist's no tax increase organization is called.

being interested, informed, and willing to have the conversations with other people in a rational way, are all necessary. Even THAT would be sufficient to change things, too, because in that case we'd be voting very differently. Unfortunately we're being indoctrinated in all kinds of ways, and having our consent "manufactured," to a large degree. How to overcome this is an interesting topic. — Xtrix

:up:

Three, we need a genuine working class party -- not slightly more and slightly less conservative parties serving the interest of the ruling class. — Bitter Crank

As far as I can tell, @Wayfarer's argument is that America has moved so far right over the last few decades, that they don't want this. I tend to disagree, and would point out that most people under 40 don't seem to have an automatic problem because the word "socialism" was mentioned (hell Tucker Carlson was getting in trouble for advocating socialist ideas).

If (probably a big if) Bernie wins, does that imply that the Democrat party could become an actual force for the working class? (again, I suppose FDR was on the right track)

This means taxing wealth at a high rate. Maybe it should be enshrined in the constitution, so it can't be changed easily. — Bitter Crank

Sounds wonderful, but there will need to be a massive change to the supreme court's view of things. It is amazing to look at the 1940s through 1960s compared to today. WAY higher taxes on the top bracket, and WAY fewer complaints about taxes being too high...then one guy scribbles on a napkin and suddenly....?!?! I am with FDR, 100% tax on everything over $25,000 (in his day...I think that is more like $500,000 today) - "No person should try, or be allowed, to get rich out of this program; and the principle of tax payment in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation." - FDR speech to Congress in 1941, seems like a different country :grimace:

One, the members of the Supreme Court need to be rotated more often -- which means ending life-time appointments. Fixed terms would solve part of the problem. The court IS POLITICAL. It has to be knocked off its pseudo-august pedestal. — Bitter Crank

A solution to this problem that I’ve thought up before that would be easier to implement constitutionally and probably a lot easier to sell to the politicians who would have to implement it: every presidential term is guaranteed one Supreme Court appointment (and if the Senate doesn’t approve any such appointment by the end of a term, the court itself chooses its pick of the President’s various nominees). Justices still remain seated for life (or their voluntary retirement).

This would gradually increase the number of justices, yes, but in an orderly and controlled way, not starting a fight between parties for who can inflate the court the fastest to maintain their political edge; and only up to a limit naturally set by the age of the appointees. This would result in judges that are still unbeholden to political popularity, and a court that continues to be a steady rudder not constantly changing with the political winds, but also make the court gradually change with the political evolution of the country, with a range of justices to each reflecting one small period of the country’s political mood from some time in living memory.

Do you think it's a relevant difference if Trump is saying these statements while trying to negotiate with Kim as opposed to, say, if he were passing a historical judgment years later on someone?

Your solution had not occurred to me, but it would help the problem of the court becoming unbalanced politically, as it is now. It would also help if we had better quality presidents and better quality congresses, in the same way that if money grew on trees, all our budgets would be balanced.

As far as I can tell, Wayfarer's argument is that America has moved so far right over the last few decades, that they don't want this. I tend to disagree, and would point out that most people under 40 don't seem to have an automatic problem because the word "socialism" was mentioned — ZhouBoTong

There is a discontinuity in the extent to which the small ruling class has moved rightward and the extent to which the masses of ordinary people have moved rightward.

Rank and file are more liberal than the ruling class. Naturally they we are more liberal; they we have far less to lose from economic democratization, and far more to gain.

It occurs to me that if my system were in place, it might not even result in a significantly inflated Supreme Court; in fact it looks like said court might remain about the same size, if history is anything to go by:

Trump would have gotten one appointment instead of the two he's had so far, so we'd actually be down to a size of eight right now on account of that, 4 liberal 4 conservative.

Obama would have gotten two, which he did.

GWB would have gotten two, which he did.

Clinton would have gotten two, which he did.

GHWB would have gotten one, and we currently have one of the two he appointed still with us, so we might have been down to a size of seven at some point on account of that, with one fewer conservative.

Reagan would have gotten two, instead of the four he did, so we might have been down to a size of five at some point on account of that, with cumulatively four fewer conservatives.

Carter would have gotten one, instead of the zero he did, so we wouldn't have been down to five but only six at some point under Reagan, with one more liberal and still cumulatively four fewer conservatives.

Ford would have gotten one, which he did.

Nixon would have gotten one, instead of the four he did, so we might have been down to a size of three at some point on account of that, with cumulatively seven fewer conservatives and one more liberal.

Johnson would have gotten one, instead of the two he did, so we might have been down to a size of two at some point on account of that, with cumulatively seven fewer conservatives.

JFK would have gotten one, instead of the two he did, so we might have been down to a size of one at some point on account of that, with cumulatively one fewer liberal and seven fewer conservatives.

Eisenhower would have gotten two, instead of the five he did, so we might have been down to a size of... er... negative three, with cumulatively one fewer liberal and ten fewer conservatives...


Yeah, looking back on how this would have worked out historically makes me think that maybe each presidential term should get two nominees, not just one, to make sure that the Supreme Court doesn't wither away and die. Have an appointment every Presidential and Midterm election, so each appointment coincides with a different President/Congress combination. Also then the court balance adjusts more quickly with the times, but still with plenty of past inertia to keep it stable.

So GHWB would have gotten two, as he did, only one of whom survives to this day.

Clinton would have gotten four, instead of two.

GWB would have gotten four, instead of two.

Obama would have gotten four, instead of two.

And Trump would have gotten two, as he has.

So we would currently (assuming none of the newer appointees would have died or retired in the meanwhile) have a Supreme Court size of fifteen, with seven conservatives and eight liberals, had we always used this system.


And man, looking back over the court history to compile this post... Republicans have gotten damn lucky with happening to be in office right as a bunch of justices were dying off, going back for decades and decades, even before they started outright stealing them like Mitch and Trump did. I mean look at those cumulative differentials... things have been tilted as much as +9 toward the conservative side since Eisenhower.

Good work tracking down appointments.

Adam Cohen, in his new book SUPREME INEQUALITY, points out that elderly conservative judges have been a bit more strategic in resigning during Republican presidencies. I"m taking his word for it. But take Ginzburg: I'm happy with her being on the court, but she may well not make it through a second Trump term.

Nixon sabotaged Johnson's Abe Fortas appointment with a smear campaign which led to his resignation from the court. The loss of Fortas (liberal) and the gain of Burger (conservative) tipped the court from liberal (under Warren) to conservative, under Berger and subsequent chief-justice appointments.

Rank and file are more liberal than the ruling class. Naturally they we are more liberal; they we have far less to lose from economic democratization, and far more to gain. — Bitter Crank

:up: