What is a democratic socialist? Bernie Sanders tries to redefine the name.

[werepossum]

Yup. It's difficult to appreciate Sanders with a low IQ. You need to have a higher than average IQ to see past the word "socialist" and understand exactly what it is that he's advocating.

On the contrary, a low IQ is extremely helpful. All you have to know is that he'll take wealth from other people and use it to give you free goods and services. That is literally the lowest common denominator in politics; you don't have to worry about sustainability or morality or workability. You just have to want free stuff.

It helps if you can look at the entire free world and decide that your ideal honeymoon would be the USSR. But if that is too much heavy lifting for your mind, just wanting free stuff will do.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You may be oversimplifying. The wealth that he's interested in taking has accumulated itself among a small 1% of the population, and it's highly questionable whether that 1% actually did the work necessary to create/earn all of that wealth or whether it was taken off of the backs of working members of the lower 99%.

 

[MongGrel]

On the contrary, a low IQ is extremely helpful. All you have to know is that he'll take wealth from other people and use it to give you free goods and services. That is literally the lowest common denominator in politics; you don't have to worry about sustainability or morality or workability. You just have to want free stuff.

It helps if you can look at the entire free world and decide that your ideal honeymoon would be the USSR. But if that is too much heavy lifting for your mind, just wanting free stuff will do.

It seems to be working for Trump. Well, you know what I mean I would hope.

 

[glenn1]

You may be oversimplifying. The wealth that he's interested in taking has accumulated itself among a small 1% of the population, and it's highly questionable whether that 1% actually did the work necessary to create/earn all of that wealth or whether it was taken off of the backs of working members of the lower 99%.

You guys like to use that phrase "taken off the backs of the working 99%" or similar a lot. Care to explain the causal mechanism for it as the 1% obviously didn't rob them at gunpoint, nor force them against their will to buy the iPhones and such that made Steve Jobs and his peers into billionaires.

 

[Guurn]

As far as working conditions go, you'll have to source that as that issue hasn't come up once in any of the articles I've looked at or that have been posted in here.

As someone who works in health care and has worked in health care for a very long time, in addition most of my siblings are physicians and most of my friends work in health careers in a variety of capacities I can say with great assurance it is all of the above and neither depending on the position and location.

Health care in the US is at a crossroads. Most areas have great facilities, but not all and generally that isn't getting worse. Pay is of course an issue but not in every specialty or area. I'll give an example.

I know an Ophthalmologist personally who has a private clinic. He pays his staff well and he makes plenty,those aren't the issues he faces. The equipment he works on is state of the art. His specialty in one that has an aging physician population. Right now he barely breaks even on certain procedures given government reimbursement excluding his fee. With the next wave of cuts he will start losing money on those procedures. He is debating stopping doing them and of course he isn't alone. One of those is Cataract removal surgery. Kind of a big deal for people who have them. In addition the lens he prefers to implant is slowly being forced out due to national pressure form a competitor. This isn't due to pricing.

Most areas in the US have great facilities and good equipment. That isn't where the pressure is coming from. It is from greatly increased prior authorization requirements and cuts to reimbursement. The last place affected by cuts are in Physician salaries especially if there is a shortage in a field. You will see cuts to support staff, political moves to keep competition away from areas, lessening of education requirements to all other areas and effective cuts to pay of all other staff. Effective cuts means 1-3 percent raises at excellent performance with increased health care costs and decreased benefits.

All of these specialties require quite a bit of education and most Physicians are pretty intelligent. Many could do whatever they want. Like it or not most people don't choose a career path based on feelings. Most want a challenging, respected job that pays well and has good vacations. As salaries get attacked they will make other choices. The same is true for all other staff as well.

 

[flexy]

Define please what a "commie" is supposed to be?

Every time when I read this BS I counter this:

Even former communist nations (say, Soviet Union, former Eastern Block or China) have LONG ABANDONED actual "true communism" (respective never really had it) and are now socialist or semi-capitalist. Short: There is no actual "communist" society on this planet and the US won't be the one becoming one.
Do you really think with Sanders we'll soon march with Mao bibles and all production and manufacturing is becoming state owned? Are you really so SILLY/uneducated/ignorant to believe that, even if we (just for shits and giggles) assume that Sanders really would be a "communist"?

Do you see why we folks can't take you guys seriously?

Or simplified: Does re-allocating resources say for "free" education etc. turn the US into fricking "communism"? You believe that?

 

[realibrad]

Define please what a "commie" is supposed to be?

Every time when I read this BS I counter this:

Even former communist nations (say, Soviet Union, former Eastern Block or China) have LONG ABANDONED actual "true communism" (respective never really had it) and are now socialist or semi-capitalist. Short: There is no actual "communist" society on this planet and the US won't be the one becoming one.
Do you really think with Sanders we'll soon march with Mao bibles and all production and manufacturing is becoming state owned? Are you really so SILLY/uneducated/ignorant to believe that, even if we (just for shits and giggles) assume that Sanders really would be a "communist"?

Do you see why we folks can't take you guys seriously?

Or simplified: Does re-allocating resources say for "free" education etc. turn the US into fricking "communism"? You believe that?

Those nations are communist because they are heading to communism. Most communist believe there needs to be a state to transition over to true communism. That is why you see strong states in communist countries.

The reality is that they do not want to get to real communism because that would give up their power, but that is at least the argument they give.

 

[flexy]

No nation is "heading to communism", as I said, even China, Russia has realized that a free market (or semi-free market if you will) is the better system. If there IS free market then it cannot be "communism". Only an idiot-nation would truly trying to pursue towards communism, it has failed and even the real communist nations have realized that. So the chances that the US turns "communist" are ZERO.

 

[glenn1]

Or simplified: Does re-allocating resources say for "free" education etc. turn the US into fricking "communism"? You believe that?

Funny how the people advocating for the "reallocation of resources" always seem to think they should be excluded from the reallocation or the very last ones after all the "rich folks who won't miss the money" are complete.

 

[glenn1]

No nation is "heading to communism", as I said, even China, Russia has realized that a free market (or semi-free market if you will) is the better system. If there IS free market then it cannot be "communism". Only an idiot-nation would truly trying to pursue towards communism, it has failed and even the real communist nations have realized that. So the chances that the US turns "communist" are ZERO.

Do you make the same pendantic point about the U.S. not being a democracy because we use elected representatives to govern rather than every issue being decided by a caucus of every citizen in 10,000 town halls all across the country?

 

[MongGrel]

No nation is "heading to communism", as I said, even China, Russia has realized that a free market (or semi-free market if you will) is the better system. If there IS free market then it cannot be "communism". Only an idiot-nation would truly trying to pursue towards communism, it has failed and even the real communist nations have realized that. So the chances that the US turns "communist" are ZERO.

No nation is headed to communism is factually accurate.

Ever one that started that way with purges etc has moved the opposite direction for decades now, and become less communist.

 

[realibrad]

No nation is "heading to communism", as I said, even China, Russia has realized that a free market (or semi-free market if you will) is the better system. If there IS free market then it cannot be "communism". Only an idiot-nation would truly trying to pursue towards communism, it has failed and even the real communist nations have realized that. So the chances that the US turns "communist" are ZERO.

In reality, any collective control is a move toward communism. It does not mean that the US would become communist, but if you put in place a policy that is or contains a collective component, its a move toward communism.

Sometimes this is good, and I'm not going to pretend that its capitalism or nothing, but its inherently true that its a move toward communism.

 

[MongGrel]

Do you make the same pendantic point about the U.S. not being a democracy because we use elected representatives to govern rather than every issue being decided by a caucus of every citizen in 10,000 town halls all across the country?

The representative government is broken at the moment.

Is more of an Oligarchy. Representatives are bought and sold on a daily basis by a select few, even the way the Electoral College operates could be skewed if it was so desired.

 

[Jhhnn]

In reality, any collective control is a move toward communism. It does not mean that the US would become communist, but if you put in place a policy that is or contains a collective component, its a move toward communism.

Sometimes this is good, and I'm not going to pretend that its capitalism or nothing, but its inherently true that its a move toward communism.

So any move in the other direction is a move toward Oligarchy I take it.

Which direction should we go from where we are now? How do we create the balance we want between wealth & democracy?

 

[glenn1]

No nation is headed to communism is factually accurate.

Ever one that started that way with purges etc has moved the opposite direction for decades now, and become less communist.

Reasonable enough point but the countries in question did hold themselves out as socialist and aspiring to communism so it's not like this was some great slur on the part of freedom loving Americans.

Mainly though it's not fair to call Bernie a "communist" because any country that aspired to the term quickly ditched any efforts to improve life for the common man, that is if they ever even claimed to in the first place. China, USSR, Cuba, etc. were all as exploitative of the commoner as the feudal czars ever were. Bernie and the progressive left OTOH has this notion the rich are exploiting the poor and if we just took the money away from the rich to give to the poor we'd have ghettos converted into Paradises full of software engineers and artists.

 

[flexy]

Funny how the people advocating for the "reallocation of resources" always seem to think they should be excluded from the reallocation or the very last ones after all the "rich folks who won't miss the money" are complete.

Wrong. I see myself as PART OF THE SOCIETY...this means I am willing and happy to share my part to the society knowing it's toward the good for anyone. Even if I consider myself "socialist" this is (how fantastic this might sound to you!) not because of own individual egotism or greed ("free stuff") but because of idealism since I KNOW it's the better system.

As opposed to some Conservatives I do NOT worry about paying tax dollars which might go to free education "because I don't have kids" or don't worry I might spend a dollar on health care "because I am healthy, why would I?"

As for your comment, wealth/income gap is a FACT. The system currently benefits a few wealthy and many more suffer. "Unregulated" capitalism gives corporates the freedom to have work done in Swasiland, import H1Bs, manufacture in Mexico or China..at the cost of a loss of jobs and thus creates poverty. So *of course* I take myself the freedom to complain that it's "not cool" when Apple, Intel, HP and CEO XYZ "makes more profit" because I know at what cost.

And say, when there are regulations in place that a company would be taxed out their a$$ for off-shoring and outsourcing..I would HARDLY call this "communism".

 

[Jhhnn]

Reasonable enough point but the countries in question did hold themselves out as socialist and aspiring to communism so it's not like this was some great slur on the part of freedom loving Americans.

Mainly though it's not fair to call Bernie a "communist" because any country that aspired to the term quickly ditched any efforts to improve life for the common man, that is if they ever even claimed to in the first place. China, USSR, Cuba, etc. were all as exploitative of the commoner as the feudal czars ever were. Bernie and the progressive left OTOH has this notion the rich are exploiting the poor and if we just took the money away from the rich to give to the poor we'd have ghettos converted into Paradises full of software engineers and artists.

Gawd. That straw man is one of the more pitiful examples I've ever seen in my life. If you're going to the trouble to construct one, at least try to do a better job of it, because that one sux.

 

[glenn1]

Gawd. That straw man is one of the more pitiful examples I've ever seen in my life. If you're going to the trouble to construct one, at least try to do a better job of it, because that one sux.

Yeah you're right, I forgot your side doesn't expect anything from anyone in the ghetto either, giving them money is only to keep the proles from rioting and coming to the part of the city where you live to lynch you.

 

[bshole]

Reasonable enough point but the countries in question did hold themselves out as socialist and aspiring to communism so it's not like this was some great slur on the part of freedom loving Americans.

Mainly though it's not fair to call Bernie a "communist" because any country that aspired to the term quickly ditched any efforts to improve life for the common man, that is if they ever even claimed to in the first place. China, USSR, Cuba, etc. were all as exploitative of the commoner as the feudal czars ever were. Bernie and the progressive left OTOH has this notion the rich are exploiting the poor and if we just took the money away from the rich to give to the poor we'd have ghettos converted into Paradises full of software engineers and artists.

Had to laught at "freedom loving Americans". Such a trite and tired cliche signifying not a damn thing. So much abuse, oppression and evil has been done under the flag of freedom that the term has obtained negative connotations in America.

 

[glenn1]

Had to laught at "freedom loving Americans". Such a trite and tired cliche signifying not a damn thing. So much abuse, oppression and evil has been done under the flag of freedom that the term has obtained negative connotations in America.

Thought the sarcasm in that was implied just as if I'd say "godless Evil Empire commies".

 

[BoberFett]

You may be oversimplifying. The wealth that he's interested in taking has accumulated itself among a small 1% of the population, and it's highly questionable whether that 1% actually did the work necessary to create/earn all of that wealth or whether it was taken off of the backs of working members of the lower 99%.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, you could confiscate every last penny the 1% make and it wouldn't pay for what's being proposed.

But I suppose you'd need a higher IQ to understand basic math.

 

[realibrad]

So any move in the other direction is a move toward Oligarchy I take it.

Yes. It does not mean that a move toward oligarchy means they will become Oligarchs, but its a move toward it.

Which direction should we go from where we are now? How do we create the balance we want between wealth & democracy?

Don't know. As society changes so does how it organizes itself. There was a time when democracy would have been infeasible given the constraints of the time. Now that technology has increased, democracy is now feasible. If you are asking me to break down a cost benefit chart on what to do, then you are sadly mistaken on my abilities, but thank you.

I will say that when we lean toward freedoms we tend to get more wealth along all classes, not just the top. When we limit freedoms, the wealth tends to go to the top.

 

[realibrad]

Wrong. I see myself as PART OF THE SOCIETY...this means I am willing and happy to share my part to the society knowing it's toward the good for anyone. Even if I consider myself "socialist" this is (how fantastic this might sound to you!) not because of own individual egotism or greed ("free stuff") but because of idealism since I KNOW it's the better system.

As opposed to some Conservatives I do NOT worry about paying tax dollars which might go to free education "because I don't have kids" or don't worry I might spend a dollar on health care "because I am healthy, why would I?"

As for your comment, wealth/income gap is a FACT. The system currently benefits a few wealthy and many more suffer. "Unregulated" capitalism gives corporates the freedom to have work done in Swasiland, import H1Bs, manufacture in Mexico or China..at the cost of a loss of jobs and thus creates poverty. So *of course* I take myself the freedom to complain that it's "not cool" when Apple, Intel, HP and CEO XYZ "makes more profit" because I know at what cost.

And say, when there are regulations in place that a company would be taxed out their a$$ for off-shoring and outsourcing..I would HARDLY call this "communism".

There are some who see socialist and shut down. You are making an argument that most caring people make and its why they lean socialist. You look at socialism as spreading around excess wealth to make people better off. Those against socialism are people who want to enjoy their excess at the expense of those less well off.

For someone like me, I disagree with that premise. The reason I don't like socialism or communism is for the same reason you think you like socialism. When you look at current human nature and you plug that into those systems, you get abuse. No doubt your counter is that you would get that in capitalism too. That is why we need the rule of law to balance all of these.

The top can get wealthy, but only when it provides something people find useful. Capitalism with the rule of law makes this the only way to get rich. That is to say, it must do something that makes other people better off.

The other systems do not require that input to get wealthy. Communism means there is no individual wealth, so not much to say there.

Socialism means there can be wealth, but the state decides how much and who can get it. It relies on people doing the right thing and not abusing the system. Capitalism does not take this faith. If you want to get wealthy in capitalism, you need to do something worth while. If you want to get wealthy in socialism, you can corrupt the system.

If you look at the major abuses in our current system, you will find it has nothing to do with an open free market. Its wealthy people keeping out competition to extract wealth that they otherwise would not be able to get in a free market.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah you're right, I forgot your side doesn't expect anything from anyone in the ghetto either, giving them money is only to keep the proles from rioting and coming to the part of the city where you live to lynch you.

That one is no better, merely more conventional in the usual paranoid fashion of Righties.

You're no good at straw men. Try sticking with something you're good at.

 

[werepossum]

There are some who see socialist and shut down. You are making an argument that most caring people make and its why they lean socialist. You look at socialism as spreading around excess wealth to make people better off. Those against socialism are people who want to enjoy their excess at the expense of those less well off.

For someone like me, I disagree with that premise. The reason I don't like socialism or communism is for the same reason you think you like socialism. When you look at current human nature and you plug that into those systems, you get abuse. No doubt your counter is that you would get that in capitalism too. That is why we need the rule of law to balance all of these.

The top can get wealthy, but only when it provides something people find useful. Capitalism with the rule of law makes this the only way to get rich. That is to say, it must do something that makes other people better off.

The other systems do not require that input to get wealthy. Communism means there is no individual wealth, so not much to say there.

Socialism means there can be wealth, but the state decides how much and who can get it. It relies on people doing the right thing and not abusing the system. Capitalism does not take this faith. If you want to get wealthy in capitalism, you need to do something worth while. If you want to get wealthy in socialism, you can corrupt the system.

If you look at the major abuses in our current system, you will find it has nothing to do with an open free market. Its wealthy people keeping out competition to extract wealth that they otherwise would not be able to get in a free market.

Well said and I tend to agree except for one point. More and more often, the wealthy make money not by adding or creating value but by exploiting ignorance, whether in stocks, currency exchanges, or in commodities. If you can correctly identify those who best know the particular market AND you have enough capital to be worth their time, then you can get good returns while adding or creating nothing of value. That's mostly later generations of wealth; if one is self-made, then one has to figure the systems out for oneself since the 2% or so who can beat the index don't handle funds for small investors. But I agree that it's worth pointing out that most of the wealthy earn their money by executing a better idea, thereby making our society better off. Well, usually; I don't know that Pet Rocks or Kardashians make society any better even though they make pots of money.