If he wants to put some ideas before the public then let him put ideas
before the public. But he really shouldn't confuse the public. And when
he says that he is for socialism and then calls for emulating another
capitalist country then he is engaging in obfuscation.
On 10/29/2015 4:17 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Well, what I think he is, is a Democrat who is in favor of a social welfare
state and he explains that the kind of social welfare state he is talking
about, is the kind that exists in Denmark. That is what he says, over and
over again. But what he is doing, is attempting to organize a laarge sector
of the American public whom, he believes, would benefit from this kind of
economic system. However, he is trying to gather a very diverse population
and this population has been brainwashed for its whole life by a corporate
mass media which has strongly propagandized against anything that looks like
socialism and against "Big Government" in quotes. Anderson Cooper's question
during the Democratic Debate about whether or not a socialist is electdable,
aimed solely at Bernie, was an example of the attitude which the media
project. So in these circumstances, if an individual wants to be covered by
the media so that he can put some ideas before the public, (and I think
that, that is really what he wants), he can't be all that precise or
academic and certainly, he's going nowhere if he were to run as the kind of
socialist that you describe. Eugene Debs could do it a hundred years ago and
he ended up in jail. America hasn't gotten better since then. It's gotten
worse. We have a corporate security state that's a lot stronger with
incredibly powerful technology. The few people whom I encounter who even
know who Bernie Sanders is, discount him in the next breath by saying, "He
can't win". I understand all the criticism of him and his positions, but it
is a breath of fresh air to hear someone say on TV that working people are
being cheated by the wealthy, banks, and corporations, that everyone has a
right to government sponsored health care, that everyone has a right to
union representation and a living wage, that social security benefits should
be expanded, not cut. To hear that said out loud and to know that a lot of
people are hearing it is important. I don't care what label he uses for
himself. I'm even willing to overlook his lousey foreign policy and his
support for Israel.
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: Thursday, October 29, 2015 3:19 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Is Bernie Sanders Dangerous to Socialism?
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 thepreaching. My point is that people tailor what they say to fit their
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
audience.
Miriamthe name of socialist.
-----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
On 10/28/2015 10:10 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:economy.
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 modern
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
$205,180.The different types of socialism are different proposals of how tosensitive to "the community."
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 the
"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
leftists.While the department receives $4.8 billion per year from theRussia.
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"precursor to Nazism,"
means 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.
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
economy.The socialists of this country must cease pulling punches with Bernieonly.
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 modern
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
$205,180.The different types of socialism are different proposals of how tosensitive to "the community."
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 the
"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
leftists.While the department receives $4.8 billion per year from theRussia.
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"precursor to Nazism,"
means 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.
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
The socialists of this country must cease pulling punches with Bernieonly.
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