sanders: can't be nominated: 'socialist' label ?

can sanders be nominated/elected with his 'socialist' label ? thanks

I don't know your age, but I am nearly sixty.
If you check off the economic policies of the postwar boom era (appr. 1947 to 1979) and compare them with the goals Bernie Sanders recommends, you quickly realize that FDR, Truman and yes, even Dwight Eisenhower all followed his policies pretty much right down the line.
Did they call their formula "democratic socialism"?
No, we were fighting the Cold War, the Red Scare was in full swing and the last thing anyone wanted to do was label anything that way.
Did the Republicans label these policies "socialism"?
Yes...that is ALL they did, they labeled EVERYTHING FDR tried to do "socialism", the John Birch Society even attacked Eisenhower, calling him a Communist traitor.

The fact is, Democratic Socialism (which is not straight socialism) in those days was a hybrid, or as Mike Wallace said in 1959, a "modified, regulated capitalist system" which harnessed the power of the entreprenurial spirit by marrying it to a set of incentives which rewarded big business if it invested in ideas which benefited the middle class.
The top Fortune 500 companies MADE their fortunes during that era, and there was no shortage of filthy rich individuals walking around.
The secret sauce that made our economic system the ENVY of the world back then was our ability to merge the best of both systems *(capitalism and socialism) into a hybrid which made capitalism a tool for the middle class.

Was FDR born to be the virtual "inventor" OF Democratic Socialism? Hell no, he was a wealthy son of the Roosevelt family, but capitalism had FAILED the American people, and a growing number of the now displaced working class were beginning to experiment with actual REAL Socialism and even Communism, so you might say FDR might have had a "Come to Jesus" moment where he realized that if his administration did NOT push through some reforms, capitalism would fail again, and revolt might loom on the horizon.

So FDR was a practical leader, a pragmatist, he recognized that the solution lay in creating a strong hybrid of the two economic gene pools.
Nature does not tolerate genetic purity, the healthiest gene pools are composed of a mix of disparate elements which, when combined, leverage the best out of all the contributing elements.

Nothing succeeds like success, so perhaps, after 35 years of FAILURE, it is time we took another look at what worked in the past.
Bernie is about as radical as Ike Eisenhower so instead of focusing on "radioactive" tags and labels, let's look at what he actually proposes.

qmuddy1 said:

can sanders be nominated/elected with his 'socialist' label ? thanks

Click to expand...

The only people put off by that label are in the idiot wing of the Republican Party anyway. You know, the ones we argue with on DP all the time, the ones that think a Sanders win would mean that we instantly transition to Soviet-style authoritarianism. I haven't heard of any Democrats that would let it affect their vote.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

The only people put off by that label are in the idiot wing of the Republican Party anyway. You know, the ones we argue with on DP all the time, the ones that think a Sanders win would mean that we instantly transition to Soviet-style authoritarianism. I haven't heard of any Democrats that would let it affect their vote.

Click to expand...

And how is it that they imagine such a thing in the face of Mitch McConnell style obstructionism, anyway?
Such careless exaggeration is the sign of an immature outlook and a lazy, undisciplined point of view.
Yeah, Sanders will turn America Bolshevik and legions of camel-driven car bombers are going to march down Wilshire Boulevard and force the Qu'uran to be sold at
7-11 stores because as everyone knows, the guy at the counter with the turban flew one of the planes into the World Trade Center.:cuckoo:

The key ingredient of a Sanders presidency is that the working class gets a louder voice, sets the tone and the agenda.
How much of that agenda sees the light of day is purely dependent upon working class people making their voices heard in their own state capitals first and foremost.
I am actually able to believe that free or nearly free college is a possible signature achievement of a Sanders presidency.
That doesn't sound like much until you look at what the future would look like for a generation not graduating into monster debt for the first time in decades.

Most of all, Sanders would push our nation leftward enough to land it roughly in the center.
Again that doesn't sound like much until you grasp the import of such a thing on the world stage.
The rest of the Western world is patiently waiting to welcome a slightly more liberal America, an America they can identify with.

The one thing that NONE of the candidates, even Sanders, has yet to discuss, is the looming specter of technological unemployment.
I think Bernie, as wonderful as he is, is likely too old to understand the impact of such a thing. Hillary couldn't care less, and neither do any of the Republicans.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

The only people put off by that label are in the idiot wing of the Republican Party anyway. You know, the ones we argue with on DP all the time, the ones that think a Sanders win would mean that we instantly transition to Soviet-style authoritarianism. I haven't heard of any Democrats that would let it affect their vote.

Click to expand...

I'm very put off by the label... and i'm not a Republican or an idiot.

I happen to understand that Socialism disavows private property rights ...even Bernie sanders variation of Socialism
I highly doubt Bernie would even want a soviet style socialist country here...but him being opposed to capitalism is reason enough to oppose him at hte ballot box....

to me, it's the epitome of stupid to elect someone who is opposed to the very best economic system the word has seen yet.... the very system that has brought everyone here, including Bernie sanders, a level of prosperity they would not have otherwise known.

now, if we want to elect a Capitalist who wants to regulate this a bit more, or that a bit less... .that's fine... capitalism is very "tweakable" that way.... but run with someone who is actually opposed to Capitalism?... that's flat out stupid on every level..


but you're right about Democrat not being affected by the label...but then again, I don't think his label, or his ideology, has been fleshed out at all during the primaries....
let's see how they deal with facts of his ideology when they come out in the general... like the fact that he doesn't believe anyone should make over a million dollars.... or his belief that all industries in the nation should be publicly owned and worker controlled.
that kind of stuff doesn't sit well with the populace......" here is some free stuff" does, however.

Thrilla said:

I'm very put off by the label... and i'm not a Republican or an idiot.

I happen to understand that Socialism disavows private property rights ...even Bernie sanders variation of Socialism
I highly doubt Bernie would even want a soviet style socialist country here...but him being opposed to capitalism is reason enough to oppose him at hte ballot box....

to me, it's the epitome of stupid to elect someone who is opposed to the very best economic system the word has seen yet.... the very system that has brought everyone here, including Bernie sanders, a level of prosperity they would not have otherwise known.

now, if we want to elect a Capitalist who wants to regulate this a bit more, or that a bit less... .that's fine... capitalism is very "tweakable" that way.... but run with someone who is actually opposed to Capitalism?... that's flat out stupid on every level..


but you're right about Democrat not being affected by the label...but then again, I don't think his label, or his ideology, has been fleshed out at all during the primaries....
let's see how they deal with facts of his ideology when they come out in the general... like the fact that he doesn't believe anyone should make over a million dollars.... or his belief that all industries in the nation should be publicly owned and worker controlled.
that kind of stuff doesn't sit well with the populace......" here is some free stuff" does, however.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting these wild ideas about Sanders?

JohnfrmClevelan said:

Where are you getting these wild ideas about Sanders?

Click to expand...

from his own mouth....though to be fair, a number of years have passed since he was uttering those words( mid 70's)... and ,well, we don't know if he still believes as much because , so far, folks haven't wanted to actually ask him.
from my perspective, it would be silly to assume he became a Capitalist since then, for hte fact that he still advertises that he's a Socialist.

The socialist surge - POLITICO

And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.
“I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves,” he wrote in 1976.

Click to expand...

but this illustrates my point that him and his ideology aren't being fleshed out in the Democratic primaries... the only thing we keep hearing is how evil rich people are, and how much free stuff Bernie wants to give away.... that's somehow considered "vetting".

for what it's worth, i think a lot of this will come to light if he wins the Nod...Democrats might not want to address this stuff, but I'm sure we both know Republicans will.(I'm not sure any of them can intelligently pull it off, though.)

Thrilla said:

from his own mouth....though to be fair, a number of years have passed since he was uttering those words( mid 70's)... and ,well, we don't know if he still believes as much because , so far, folks haven't wanted to actually ask him.
from my perspective, it would be silly to assume he became a Capitalist since then, for hte fact that he still advertises that he's a Socialist.

The socialist surge - POLITICO


but this illustrates my point that him and his ideology aren't being fleshed out in the Democratic primaries... the only thing we keep hearing is how evil rich people are, and how much free stuff Bernie wants to give away.... that's somehow considered "vetting".

for what it's worth, i think a lot of this will come to light if he wins the Nod...Democrats might not want to address this stuff, but I'm sure we both know Republicans will.(I'm not sure any of them can intelligently pull it off, though.)

Click to expand...

These ideas are not as radical as you made them sound. CEO compensation is more of an issue than ever. And workers owning a stake in the companies they work for is a good thing, especially in light of all the short-termism we are seeing today. Both of these are the result of lightly-regulated capitalism.

Anyway, Democrats don't find this stuff scary. And from what I hear from my conservative friends, they see Sanders as, at least, an honest man. But they despise Clinton. And I don't think Hillary wants to go negative if she doesn't absolutely have to - too many skeletons in that closet.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

These ideas are not as radical as you made them sound. CEO compensation is more of an issue than ever. And workers owning a stake in the companies they work for is a good thing, especially in light of all the short-termism we are seeing today. Both of these are the result of lightly-regulated capitalism.

Anyway, Democrats don't find this stuff scary. And from what I hear from my conservative friends, they see Sanders as, at least, an honest man. But they despise Clinton. And I don't think Hillary wants to go negative if she doesn't absolutely have to - too many skeletons in that closet.

Click to expand...

really?... capping earnings and nationalizing all industries aren't radical ideas?... I beg to differ.

CEO compensation shouldn't be an issue at all... it's really only an issue to those whom feel entitled to other peoples earnings.
I do agree that short term vision is a problem though... but that's the nature of today beast where the economy moves at lighting pace and more money is made from moving money around money than from products and services delivered.

I see Bernie as honest myself... well, more honest than Hillary that is.
that doesn't mean I won't speak out against Socialism, though, though... I think it's a big mistake to whitewash the issue or pretend it's not a big issue whatsoever...opposing capitalism is a massive issue.
I think Democrats have agreed not to go negative on each other prior to the campaign season even beginning.....which pretty much removes any hope of either candidate being adequately vetted... it doesn't benefit Hillary very much, because, well, we know about her already... but it surely benefits Bernie. As a relative newcomer on the national stage, he benefits greatly by not being called on the carpet.

in any event, all i know is that my ( potential) guy won't win( Gary Johnson)... it's pretty much a race between socialist and fascists ( that's hyperbole, for the most part)...and it's impossible for the nation to be better off going either of those directions.

Thrilla said:

I happen to understand that Socialism disavows private property rights ...even Bernie sanders variation of Socialism[...]
but you're right about Democrat not being affected by the label...but then again, I don't think his label, or his ideology, has been fleshed out at all during the primaries....
let's see how they deal with facts of his ideology when they come out in the general... like the fact that he doesn't believe anyone should make over a million dollars.... or his belief that all industries in the nation should be publicly owned and worker controlled.
that kind of stuff doesn't sit well with the populace......" here is some free stuff" does, however.

Click to expand...

What and where. I never heard him say anything remotely like that, nor do I think I've ever heard him say that all industries should be publicly owned either.
Please help an old man out and show me, like I am from Missouri.

The one I think is out and out NewsMax NONSENSE however, the whopper of the bunch, is:

"I happen to understand that Socialism disavows private property rights ...even Bernie sanders variation of Socialism."

That one, I guarantee you, is something scraped off the underside of a subway seat.

Thrilla said:

from his own mouth....though to be fair, a number of years have passed since he was uttering those words( mid 70's)... and ,well, we don't know if he still believes as much because , so far, folks haven't wanted to actually ask him.
from my perspective, it would be silly to assume he became a Capitalist since then, for hte fact that he still advertises that he's a Socialist.

The socialist surge - POLITICO


but this illustrates my point that him and his ideology aren't being fleshed out in the Democratic primaries... the only thing we keep hearing is how evil rich people are, and how much free stuff Bernie wants to give away.... that's somehow considered "vetting".

for what it's worth, i think a lot of this will come to light if he wins the Nod...Democrats might not want to address this stuff, but I'm sure we both know Republicans will.(I'm not sure any of them can intelligently pull it off, though.)

Click to expand...

This whole thing sounds a lot like the difference between a white man walking around with a gun in public and a black man uttering the WORD "gun" in public.
Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, if there's a (D) next to the name, I guess we can set our watch by the predicted reaction from a certain segment of the forum, and nothing I or anyone else says is going to change that reaction.

Here is what I DO KNOW however....corruption by organized money is every bit as dangerous as corruption by organized crime. Yeah, that's lifted from a famous quotation.
And it's pure folly to pretend that the greediest of men, by their own volition, will do for the weakest among us what we cannot do for ourselves.
At no time in history and at no point in the future is it possible for a large society to operate in a market economy and not produce constant fraud, no matter how “free” the market is.
So stop pretending, okay?

The regulatory mechanisms and the market cannot be separated, as a market cannot exist in any complex way without regulation and survive.
It is that simple. It is a fantasy that it could work otherwise and the anarcho-capitalists just subscribe to a fantasy religion based on Adam Smith’s invisible hand, a hand, by the way, which was DISAVOWED finally in 2008 by Alan Greenspan, perhaps his greatest living exponent, after he admitted that maybe, just maybe, the free market needed a little more policing. Really, Alan?
Even if you tried using another means of meditation, it doesn’t change the foundational reality of the need for protection in the game of trade, so in the end you're just trading in government regulation for regulation by a bunch of wealthy crooks.
Are you sure that's wise?

Bernie Sanders is basically saying that regulations and laws that protect us from the predatory nature of the market were put there for a damn good reason.
What Bernie is not saying but he will readily admit, is that there were plenty of filthy rich people walking around in the years when those regulations were in place.
He just wants those regulations back, that's all.

Did you grow up in that era?
I sure did, and I guarantee you the overall standard of living was far better then, than it is now for the largest number of people.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

What and where. I never heard him say anything remotely like that, nor do I think I've ever heard him say that all industries should be publicly owned either.
Please help an old man out and show me, like I am from Missouri.

The one I think is out and out NewsMax NONSENSE however, the whopper of the bunch, is:

"I happen to understand that Socialism disavows private property rights ...even Bernie sanders variation of Socialism."

That one, I guarantee you, is something scraped off the underside of a subway seat.

Click to expand...

i already proved the link... it's from a politico article, citing Bernies own words from his local newspaper in Burlington in 1974 and 1976 respectively.

and no, i don't get my political ideology knowledge from subway seats.. I actually read, and have for over 50 years.
my comment is not controversial whatsoever... it's not a slight or an insult.. it's simple understanding of Socialism.
disavowing private property is part and parcel of Socialism, it's inherent to the ideology.....one cannot be a Socialist and respect private property rights, it's really that simple.

Never had a steady job until he reached 40.

He should be a big hit among millennials.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

This whole thing sounds a lot like the difference between a white man walking around with a gun in public and a black man uttering the WORD "gun" in public.
Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, if there's a (D) next to the name, I guess we can set our watch by the predicted reaction from a certain segment of the forum, and nothing I or anyone else says is going to change that reaction.

Click to expand...

no idea what your getting at here.

Here is what I DO KNOW however....corruption by organized money is every bit as dangerous as corruption by organized crime. Yeah, that's lifted from a famous quotation.
And it's pure folly to pretend that the greediest of men, by their own volition, will do for the weakest among us what we cannot do for ourselves.
At no time in history and at no point in the future is it possible for a large society to operate in a market economy and not produce constant fraud, no matter how “free” the market is.
So stop pretending, okay?

Click to expand...

... and this has what do do with anything i've said?

The regulatory mechanisms and the market cannot be separated, as a market cannot exist in any complex way without regulation and survive.
It is that simple. It is a fantasy that it could work otherwise and the anarcho-capitalists just subscribe to a fantasy religion based on Adam Smith’s invisible hand, a hand, by the way, which was DISAVOWED finally in 2008 by Alan Greenspan, perhaps his greatest living exponent, after he admitted that maybe, just maybe, the free market needed a little more policing. Really, Alan?
Even if you tried using another means of meditation, it doesn’t change the foundational reality of the need for protection in the game of trade, so in the end you're just trading in government regulation for regulation by a bunch of wealthy crooks.
Are you sure that's wise?

Click to expand...

umm.. ok?... why are you targeting this weird tirade at me?

Bernie Sanders is basically saying that regulations and laws that protect us from the predatory nature of the market were put there for a damn good reason.
What Bernie is not saying but he will readily admit, is that there were plenty of filthy rich people walking around in the years when those regulations were in place.
He just wants those regulations back, that's all.

Click to expand...

well, that's a valid opinion... but i don't have the same blind loyalty to a socialist that you do, because, well , I think it's the epitome of isnaity to put a known and avowed socialist in hte top set of a capitalist country... and then to pretend he actually respects capitalist institutions, is virtually insane.
it's not different that putting a totalitarian dictator in charge of a liberal democracy... foxes in henhouses, and all that.
I trust Bernie to be exactly what he says he is.. a Democratic Socialist.

Did you grow up in that era?
I sure did, and I guarantee you the overall standard of living was far better then, than it is now for the largest number of people.

Click to expand...

I was born in 1953.....and I grew up in extreme poverty ..until 1969, when I enlisted in the Corps.

there are many things we can do within capitalism to better the system.... electing someone to the highest office in the land, who diametrically opposed to the very system that has made us prosperous and productive is beyond ****ing stupid.
that said, I also understand electing him will be nothing to actually fear , in and of itself... he doesn't have the power to actually do anything he says he wants to do.. and he certainly doesn't have the power to enact any of his crazy socialist beliefs.
without a congress willing to directly take on Capitalism, Bernie will just be an angry old white man wagging at the moon with those crooked fingers.

Thrilla said:

well, that's a valid opinion... but i don't have the same blind loyalty to a socialist that you do, because, well ,

Click to expand...

This "socialism" you keep talking about, I do not think it means what you think it means.
But I see you already labeled my carefully worded piece on the defects in anarcho capitalism as practiced today as a "weird tirade" so it's evident that
you're really just skimming over the dialogue boxes and seizing on key words and not really distilling any meaning from it.

The conservatives have been flogging that term for well over seventy years now.
If you grew up in 53, in what you term "extreme poverty", I would be THRILLED to get some clarification on that.

RetiredUSN said:

Never had a steady job until he reached 40.

He should be a big hit among millennials.

Click to expand...

He sucked at being a carpenter, yeah, very true.
Dubya sucked at being an oil man, a baseball team owner and a fighter pilot.
Trump sucked at being a casino owner, a school administrator and without question he sucks at being a real estate developer.
He could have invested his money in securities and done better.

Are we really going to compare occupational histories? This should be fun.

Thrilla said:

i already proved the link... it's from a politico article, citing Bernies own words from his local newspaper in Burlington in 1974 and 1976 respectively.

and no, i don't get my political ideology knowledge from subway seats.. I actually read, and have for over 50 years.
my comment is not controversial whatsoever... it's not a slight or an insult.. it's simple understanding of Socialism.
disavowing private property is part and parcel of Socialism, it's inherent to the ideology.....one cannot be a Socialist and respect private property rights, it's really that simple.

Click to expand...

Democratic Socialism

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Democratic Socialism

View attachment 67197681

Click to expand...

is that 2nd statement true?

capitalism without socialism = fascism

lb_on_teh_cb said:

is that 2nd statement true?

capitalism without socialism = fascism

Click to expand...

Well, these last 35 or 40 years we have been dismantling as much of the New Deal social contract as possible, yes?
We've been deregulating so fast it's as if regulations were fire ants, and that's also part of the social contract, yes?
What do you think? From where I sit we have just about ticked all the boxes on the fascism list, we're just narrowing down the list of scapegoats to blame our troubles on and finding contractors to build the ovens, so for my money, capitalism without some semblance of socialist buffer to regulate it IS very much a path to fascism if only because there is no longer anything to stop it.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Well, these last 35 or 40 years we have been dismantling as much of the New Deal social contract as possible, yes?
We've been deregulating so fast it's as if regulations were fire ants, and that's also part of the social contract, yes?
What do you think? From where I sit we have just about ticked all the boxes on the fascism list, we're just narrowing down the list of scapegoats to blame our troubles on and finding contractors to build the ovens, so for my money, capitalism without some semblance of socialist buffer to regulate it IS very much a path to fascism if only because there is no longer anything to stop it.

Click to expand...

i was just asking the question. i thought there might be some definition or something

lb_on_teh_cb said:

i was just asking the question. i thought there might be some definition or something

Click to expand...

There might be but I suppose I have to wonder if you were under the impression that I was quoting some sort of "rule" or "law", like Ohm's Law.
Some believe politics to be a science, and maybe some of it is. I suppose it is scientifically possible to establish a set of rules that define socialism and fascism, almost to the point where it can be expressed in a mathematical equation.
If I were a really really REALLY smart guy, which I am not, I probably would be so well versed that I could scribble such an equation on a chalkboard and say, "Why YES LB, here it is in the sum or quotient, right here" as I deftly aim my pointer at the board.



But alas, I never was a brain for numbers and figures. I admit that I am more a "colors and shapes" person, so my above paragraph is the best I can do.

"So for my money, capitalism without some semblance of socialist buffer to regulate it IS very much a path to fascism if only because there is no longer anything to stop it."

Click to expand...

Cheers, hope that helps!

Checkerboard Strangler said:

This "socialism" you keep talking about, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Click to expand...

but of course... you're not hte first one around here to pretend you're the only only who knows the meanings of words.

But I see you already labeled my carefully worded piece on the defects in anarcho capitalism as practiced today as a "weird tirade" so it's evident that
you're really just skimming over the dialogue boxes and seizing on key words and not really distilling any meaning from it.

Click to expand...

I read your words.. that's how i know you aren't addressing anything i've said.

The conservatives have been flogging that term for well over seventy years now.

Click to expand...

umm ok?... is this supposed to mean something?

If you grew up in 53, in what you term "extreme poverty", I would be THRILLED to get some clarification on that.

Click to expand...

why would you need clarification on that?...how can that possibly be a confusing statement?

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Democratic Socialism

View attachment 67197681

Click to expand...

that's a rather dumb meme..... most certainly written by a Socialist.