Simplifying things is okay, but that is an entirely different matter
from misrepresenting yourself. There are many words that mean more than
one thing. Unfortunately, the more things a single word means the more
vague it is as a word and the harder it is to use that word to
communicate. A lot of words that refer to subjective emotional feelings
are like that. Not only do the words become more and more vague with the
more and more things that they mean, but the point comes that when you
allow a word to mean everything it effectively means nothing. The word
socialism does mean something though. Now let me admit that in my last
message on this subject I did oversimplify it myself. I said that at the
minimum a socialist must be in favor of abolishing capitalism. That is
not exactly true because someone could be in favor of abolishing
capitalism and returning to feudalism instead. That person would
certainly not be a socialist. Let me rephrase myself a bit. At the very
minimum a socialist must be someone who is in favor of abolishing
capitalism and replacing it with an economic system in which the means
of production is owned and controlled publicly. If you are not in favor
of that you are not a socialist. I am very generous in accepting that
definition because by that definition I include a lot of political
tendencies that I sharply disagree with and I even include some social
democrats even if it is the left-wing social democrats that I include.
Bernard Sanders does not qualify as a left-wing social democrat. In
fact, he is even to the right of most right-wing social democrats. When
he calls himself a socialist he is not simplifying. He is distorting the
word socialist to the point that it becomes useless as a political term
if we were to accept it. If he wants to simplify things he can just call
himself a liberal. That is plenty simple and it does not distort the
word socialism. And frankly, he does not seem to be even especially a
left-wing liberal either.
On 10/29/2015 9:37 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Well, I think he calls himself a Social Democrat. The writer of the article
was most upset because she accuses Bernie of having called government
programs, "socialism", in a speech. I suspect that Bernie knows better, but
is using simple language to appeal to the masses. I have noticed that most
people who make speeches do this. Yesterday, I watched a video in which
Chris Hedges was having a very complicated philosophical discussion with a
Canadian author and social commentator. They're both extremely well read,
articulate people. I don't know nearly as much as they do and I had
dificulty following some of what they said. In contrast, Hedges gave a
speech at Rise Up in New York last weekend where he spoke to a huge crowd of
people protesting mass incarceration. During that speech, he spoke in short,
easy to understand, declarative sentences at first. He introduced himself to
the people sayhing that he is a writer, that he teaches people who are in
prison, and that he is a Presbyterean minister. And then his speech was sort
of like a sermon, simple, moving, very much like preaching. My point is that
people tailor what they say to fit their audience.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:41 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Is Bernie Sanders Dangerous to Socialism?
As I have been saying, when right-wingers call Obama a socialist and when
Sanders calls himself a socialist they are both misleading people about what
socialism is. To be a socialist you have to, at the very minimum, be in
favor of the abolition of capitalism. I have said before that the social
democrats are hardly distinguishable from liberals, but Sanders is even
further to the right than most social democrats. Anymore to find a social
democrat who is actually socialist you have to look at the far left of the
social democrats. And even the far left social democrats think they can
bring socialism about by trying to make capitalism somehow nicer. People
like Bernard Sanders have no perspective at all for abolishing capitalism
and so falsely claim the name of socialist.
On 10/28/2015 10:10 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
This is especially for Roger and Carl.9, 2015.
Is Bernie Sanders Dangerous to Socialism?
Wednesday, 28 October 2015 00:00 By Emma Caterine, Truthout | Op-Ed
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders delivers an address on how to
spur the US economy at Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, February
(Photo: Brookings Institution)(p. 265, p. 444).
Do you want to see more stories like this published? Click here to
help Truthout continue doing this work!
"... the mistakes that are made by a truly revolutionary workers'
movement are, historically speaking, immeasurably more fruitful and
more valuable than the infallibility of the best possible 'Central
Committee.'" - Rosa Luxemburg, democratic socialist, Rosa Luxemburg Reader
On October 18, 2015, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders decidedgovernment institutions are inherently socialist.
that Iowa City would be where he declared what "democratic socialism"
means to him. A bit shy of a 13-point program, Sanders did cite some
helpful examples of what he considers socialist institutions: Social
Security, Medicare and the police. Interestingly, the last time I
heard these institutions in the United States referred to as socialist
was when they were being attacked by libertarians like Ron Paul and
Ross Perot. Apparently the populist independent-turned-Democrat from
Vermont and the unrepentant capitalists share the viewpoint that
I could laugh off the reactionary ravings of the right wing. But mysocialist.
heart sank when I saw Sanders' statements. Empirically and
historically incorrect, they endanger any hope for building socialism
in the United States through a doublespeak of calling liberal institutions
It may seem nitpicky to the unfamiliar, but Sanders' politics areprograms.
actually what is commonly referred to as social democracy. Social
democrats believe that the purpose of the state is to intervene in,
but not take over, the capitalist economy in order to promote social
justice. The countries that Sanders loves to idolize - the Nordic
nations - are often called social democracies. While less broad and
generous than the Nordic welfare programs, the United States' Social
Security and Medicare programs can also be called social democratic
In fact, echoing the "Obama is a socialist" sentiments of the modernsensitive to "the community."
Tea Party, opponents of Social Security in the late 1930s claimed that
it was socialism. But it is very much not. Socialism is ownership by
workers of the means of production, or worker control of the economy.
The different types of socialism are different proposals of how to
accomplish these aims, from the "transitional programs" of Trotskyists
to the autonomous collectives of syndicalists.
Social Security, on the other hand, is intervention into the
capitalist economy. Rather than building workers' power, Social
Security gives them "social insurance" based on the very same unequal
metrics - wages that created the need for the intervention. It is like
a consolation prize for losing capitalism! President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's New Deal brought on a "golden age of capitalism," and is
still referenced as such by the capitalist apologists of today.
In a time when resistance by people of color against racist police is
held as the modern example of "people power," even some liberals must
have been thrown by Bernie Sanders' classification of police as
socialist. But the New York City Police Department is described as at
the "cutting edge" of policing, and "pioneering" new ways to be more
Surely this "progressive" police department would demonstrate theRussia.
"socialism" Sanders says is exemplified by police. But rather than the
workers democratically controlling how policing operates, the NYPD is
run by a strict hierarchy. There are 13 tiers, from the new officers
making $41,975 per year to NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton's $205,180.
While the department receives $4.8 billion per year from the
government, it is talked about like a global franchise. The assertion
that the police are a socialist institution is even more preposterous
when historically they have functioned to protect the property of the
wealthy and prevent leftist uprisings by groups like the Black Panther
Party, the Young Lords and the American Indian Movement.
Bernie Sanders' statements are inaccurate, but is he dangerous to
socialists? Unfortunately, social democrats like Sanders have
demonstrated in the past that at crucial moments, they will side with
the right wing over actual socialists.
It was December 30, 1918, in Berlin, and Rosa Luxemburg had enough.
"Red Rosa" had long been a firebrand in German politics: organizing
sex workers, fighting against capital punishment and war, successfully
calling multiple general strikes and writing a book on Marxist
economics that both compliments and builds on Marx's Capital.
Supporting the kaiser in World War I and resisting the new workers'
councils, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) of Germany had proven to
be detrimental to the fight for socialism. The war had split the
socialists of the country: the SDP believing in reforming capitalism,
the Communist Party (which Luxemburg had formed after the war) wanting
to replicate a more democratic version of the Bolshevik Revolution in
"Our solution," Luxemburg declared in a speech, "offers the only means"precursor to Nazism,"
of saving human society from destruction." Luxemburg and her Communist
Party of Germany threatened the Social Democratic Party with open
defiance. So the SDP ordered the Freikorps, right-wingers known as a
to suppress the rebellion. Luxemburg was captured, tortured and killed.only.
Obviously we do not live in quite as turbulent times as Germany was in
then, but the simultaneous rise of populism on both the left
(represented by
Sanders) and the right (represented by Donald Trump), with no
challenge to capitalism itself, should at least concern American leftists.
The socialists of this country must cease pulling punches with Bernie
Sanders, often held in the hope that his candidacy is an entryway to
actual socialism. When we make such compromises, we underestimate how
well Sanders can make his social democratic ideas a dead end in
capitalism, rather than a path to socialism. We need transitional
programs like Socialist Alternative's strategy in Seattle. That is
pragmatism. There is nothing pragmatic about the dead end of social
democracy. And there is nothing revolutionary about socialism in name
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.Law.
EMMA CATERINE
Emma is resident Marxist troublemaker and student at the CUNY School of
She has written for Autostraddle, Feministing, The Feminist Wire, RHor Worker?"
Reality Check, and co-authored Red Umbrella Project's "Criminal, Victim,
report on the Human Trafficking Intervention Courts.(p. 265, p. 444).
RELATED STORIES
Will Americans Vote for a Democratic Socialist?
By Lawrence S. Wittner, Truthout | Op-Ed A Socialist Surge in the US?
Bernie Sanders Draws Record Crowds, Praises Greek Anti-Austerity Vote
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview What One Historian
Wishes Bernie Sanders Said About Being a Socialist By Bernard
Weisberger, Moyers & Company | Op-Ed
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Is Bernie Sanders Dangerous to Socialism?
Wednesday, 28 October 2015 00:00 By Emma Caterine, Truthout | Op-Ed
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error!
Hyperlink reference not valid.
. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders delivers an address on how to
spur the US economy at Brookings Institution in Washington, DC,
February 9, 2015. (Photo: Brookings Institution)
. Do you want to see more stories like this published? Click here to
help Truthout continue doing this work!
"... the mistakes that are made by a truly revolutionary workers'
movement are, historically speaking, immeasurably more fruitful and
more valuable than the infallibility of the best possible 'Central
Committee.'" - Rosa Luxemburg, democratic socialist, Rosa Luxemburg Reader
On October 18, 2015, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders decidedgovernment institutions are inherently socialist.
that Iowa City would be where he declared what "democratic socialism"
means to him. A bit shy of a 13-point program, Sanders did cite some
helpful examples of what he considers socialist institutions: Social
Security, Medicare and the police. Interestingly, the last time I
heard these institutions in the United States referred to as socialist
was when they were being attacked by libertarians like Ron Paul and
Ross Perot. Apparently the populist independent-turned-Democrat from
Vermont and the unrepentant capitalists share the viewpoint that
I could laugh off the reactionary ravings of the right wing. But mysocialist.
heart sank when I saw Sanders' statements. Empirically and
historically incorrect, they endanger any hope for building socialism
in the United States through a doublespeak of calling liberal institutions
It may seem nitpicky to the unfamiliar, but Sanders' politics areprograms.
actually what is commonly referred to as social democracy. Social
democrats believe that the purpose of the state is to intervene in,
but not take over, the capitalist economy in order to promote social
justice. The countries that Sanders loves to idolize - the Nordic
nations - are often called social democracies. While less broad and
generous than the Nordic welfare programs, the United States' Social
Security and Medicare programs can also be called social democratic
In fact, echoing the "Obama is a socialist" sentiments of the modernsensitive to "the community."
Tea Party, opponents of Social Security in the late 1930s claimed that
it was socialism. But it is very much not. Socialism is ownership by
workers of the means of production, or worker control of the economy.
The different types of socialism are different proposals of how to
accomplish these aims, from the "transitional programs" of Trotskyists
to the autonomous collectives of syndicalists.
Social Security, on the other hand, is intervention into the
capitalist economy. Rather than building workers' power, Social
Security gives them "social insurance" based on the very same unequal
metrics - wages that created the need for the intervention. It is like
a consolation prize for losing capitalism! President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's New Deal brought on a "golden age of capitalism," and is
still referenced as such by the capitalist apologists of today.
In a time when resistance by people of color against racist police is
held as the modern example of "people power," even some liberals must
have been thrown by Bernie Sanders' classification of police as
socialist. But the New York City Police Department is described as at
the "cutting edge" of policing, and "pioneering" new ways to be more
Surely this "progressive" police department would demonstrate theRussia.
"socialism" Sanders says is exemplified by police. But rather than the
workers democratically controlling how policing operates, the NYPD is
run by a strict hierarchy. There are 13 tiers, from the new officers
making $41,975 per year to NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton's $205,180.
While the department receives $4.8 billion per year from the
government, it is talked about like a global franchise. The assertion
that the police are a socialist institution is even more preposterous
when historically they have functioned to protect the property of the
wealthy and prevent leftist uprisings by groups like the Black Panther
Party, the Young Lords and the American Indian Movement.
Bernie Sanders' statements are inaccurate, but is he dangerous to
socialists? Unfortunately, social democrats like Sanders have
demonstrated in the past that at crucial moments, they will side with
the right wing over actual socialists.
It was December 30, 1918, in Berlin, and Rosa Luxemburg had enough.
"Red Rosa" had long been a firebrand in German politics: organizing
sex workers, fighting against capital punishment and war, successfully
calling multiple general strikes and writing a book on Marxist
economics that both compliments and builds on Marx's Capital.
Supporting the kaiser in World War I and resisting the new workers'
councils, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) of Germany had proven to
be detrimental to the fight for socialism. The war had split the
socialists of the country: the SDP believing in reforming capitalism,
the Communist Party (which Luxemburg had formed after the war) wanting
to replicate a more democratic version of the Bolshevik Revolution in
"Our solution," Luxemburg declared in a speech, "offers the only means"precursor to Nazism,"
of saving human society from destruction." Luxemburg and her Communist
Party of Germany threatened the Social Democratic Party with open
defiance. So the SDP ordered the Freikorps, right-wingers known as a
to suppress the rebellion. Luxemburg was captured, tortured and killed.only.
Obviously we do not live in quite as turbulent times as Germany was in
then, but the simultaneous rise of populism on both the left
(represented by
Sanders) and the right (represented by Donald Trump), with no
challenge to capitalism itself, should at least concern American leftists.
The socialists of this country must cease pulling punches with Bernie
Sanders, often held in the hope that his candidacy is an entryway to
actual socialism. When we make such compromises, we underestimate how
well Sanders can make his social democratic ideas a dead end in
capitalism, rather than a path to socialism. We need transitional
programs like Socialist Alternative's strategy in Seattle. That is
pragmatism. There is nothing pragmatic about the dead end of social
democracy. And there is nothing revolutionary about socialism in name
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.Law.
Emma Caterine
Emma is resident Marxist troublemaker and student at the CUNY School of
She has written for Autostraddle, Feministing, The Feminist Wire, RHor Worker?"
Reality Check, and co-authored Red Umbrella Project's "Criminal, Victim,
report on the Human Trafficking Intervention Courts.
Related Stories
Will Americans Vote for a Democratic Socialist?
By Lawrence S. Wittner, Truthout | Op-EdA Socialist Surge in the US?
Bernie Sanders Draws Record Crowds, Praises Greek Anti-Austerity Vote
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video InterviewWhat One Historian
Wishes Bernie Sanders Said About Being a Socialist By Bernard
Weisberger, Moyers & Company | Op-Ed
Show Comments