What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

Try to do more than simply claim Sanders is a commie.   This is intended to be an adult discussion where we look at what Sanders is actually proposing and compare it to other systems.

Great article TiG.  On road now but will like to discuss in the coming week.  I’m with you on asking why he continues to describe himself as a “socialist”.  Makes me wonder about how he really feels about the very system that made him richer than the average citizen, given that he is already “in”.  I think what most fear is that he will take even democratic socialism too far, resulting in a great deal of pain for many but the political elite and their rich friends who believe only in their own “benevolence”.

What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

I never understood why he does that.   He is a social democrat.   Clearly.   Why not just self-label based on what you promote?   Bizarre.

What is also strange is that people call him a communist (referencing the former USSR).   How on Earth do they correlate what he proposes to the brutal authoritarian command economy one-party regime of the former USSR?

Indeed there is no direct correlation, I will stipulate. However, one might point out that the lists you provide in your comparison contrasting Bernies proposed policies with the characteristics of what became Soviet Russia are from vastly different points in a political process.  Surely before Stalin came to power he was touting a Marxist Utopia driven by policies similar to those proposed by social democrats of today including some of the more extreme government/central control and redistribution of wealth ideas central to Sander’s platform.  Your list tends to omit some of his more extreme positions like free college tuition for all, student loan forgiveness, and government run single payer health care, etc.  While such ideas may not have resulted in authoritarian style communism in places like Denmark or Sweden, at least not yet, I doubt the people of Russia saw it coming when listening to what Stalin was proposing before he came to power either.   Nonetheless, I agree that it is more likely that Bernie’s policies will render results more akin to those in social democracies like the Nordic or other European countries at least in the short run.  However, what happens when democratic socialism becomes unsustainable, when it starts to buckle under its own weight in a country many times larger than a small Nordic country?  Surely lessons from the past can color our speculation about how quickly the socialist Utopia can become an authoritarian nightmare.  

Trumpism is an "Authoritarian Nightmare"...

Tyrants and dictators have emerged from across the political spectrum. The people of Germany gave power to the Nazis. Julius Ceasar the elected leader of the Roman Senate became Dictator of The Roman Republic which was never a republic thereafter. Caesar certainly was not a socialist. 

Economic is just math. We pay twice as much overall per person in America for our inefficient inequitable ineffective healthcare system compared with all the other industrialized nations and yet we get worse results and still 30,000,000 Americans have no coverage at all. 

Your logic is whack, based on irrational fear.

Surely before Stalin came to power he was touting a Marxist Utopia driven by policies similar to those proposed by social democrats of today including some of the more extreme government/central control and redistribution of wealth ideas central to Sander’s platform.

Actually it was Lenin and Trotsky who made the promises;  Stalin came later.   But yes leaders make all sorts of promises and then once in power carry out their actual policies.   Lenin, for example, promised that the starving impoverished workers would control the industry (economy) of the soviet union with democratic soviets and that prosperity would finally exist for the working class.   Not even close to what actually transpired.   Stalin took over after Lenin's death and is the real architect behind the system known as the former USSR.   This was entirely detached from promises;  it was pure authoritarian rule building (on blood) an industrial society, a war machine, killing (literally) dissent and oppressing the people back to serfdom.

The key here is that throughout history, politicians have made promises similar to those of Sanders.   Indeed, take off the extremes of Sanders and you will see rather standard D platform items.   Are the political leaders (current and historic) for most of the European nations all 'communists' because their list of promises correlate with Sanders'?   Was FDR a 'communist'?   Of course not.   Political promises are a poor basis for comparison.   Not only do they not reveal the actual mechanics of policy (a very big deal) but they do not distinguish one system from another.   Promising prosperity, for example, does not distinguish a resulting system of 'communism' per the former USSR from fascism of Hitler from social democracy of the U.K. or the (light) social democracy of the USA.   One must compare policies (how promises are to be realized).

Your list tends to omit some of his more extreme positions like free college tuition for all, student loan forgiveness, and government run single payer health care, etc.  

I grouped this under 'Big government providing extensive social programs'; this is the line item that contains the 'free' stuff.   Include as many line items from Sanders' as you wish in your own list and make the comparison.    You will find that those items correlate far better with social democracy than 'communism' per the former USSR.   Again, look at the Nordic nations because that is Sanders' exemplar.

Nonetheless, I agree that it is more likely that Bernie’s policies will render results more akin to those in social democracies like the Nordic or other European countries at least in the short run.  

I agree, but I see no comparison whatsoever to the system of the former USSR.   Sanders' policies are obviously social democracy.   

However, what happens when democratic socialism becomes unsustainable, when it starts to buckle under its own weight in a country many times larger than a small Nordic country?  

Democratic socialism is a theoretical model which is based on capitalism no longer existing as the economic engine.   Democratic socialism ≠ social democracy; entirely different models.    Democratic socialism is also a (confused IMO) political movement (DSA).   Sanders is part of the political movement of DSA.   Democratic socialism, the theoretical model, does not exist anywhere on the planet and has never existed.   Sanders' claims to be a democratic socialist but his policies are simply social democracy.   Why he self-labels as he does has made me shake my head for years.

That established, the problem of buckling under its own weight is not limited to social democracy.    It is a problem with statism in general.   As government grows larger and more invasive, the potential for abuse, ineffectiveness and societal apathy/laziness/atrophy increases.   Take the USA for example.   At what point does our incessant borrowing from citizens whose grandparents have yet to be born to fund current programs fail?   What value have we provided at a societal level by encouraging generational dependence on the government?  Your question is a good one, but it is not limited to social democracy.    Also, this article is not in any way defending social democracy.   It is clarifying that labeling Sanders' a 'communist' per the former USSR is flat out wrong.

Surely lessons from the past can color our speculation about how quickly the socialist Utopia can become an authoritarian nightmare.  

Per the above, there has never been a socialist utopia anywhere on the planet.    It has never existed.   What has existed are numerous dictators rising to power with promises drawn from Marx' vision of a worker utopia and in every case the dictators only took the promises and ignored the process and the mechanics.    For example, the concept of a dictator via an authoritarian state driving socialism is the exact opposite of Marx' approach.  It is the people/workers, not a dictator that are supposed to make this happen.   How that would ever work remains a curiosity, but the point is the 'Marxists' such as Lenin, Stalin, Castro, …, Chavez were very skilled with propaganda but failed miserably implementing the mechanics Marx called for.   My view is that they had no intent to implement the mechanics.

Tyrants and dictators have emerged from across the political spectrum. The people of Germany gave power to the Nazis. Julius Ceasar the elected leader of the Roman Senate became Dictator of The Roman Republic which was never a republic thereafter. Caesar certainly was not a socialist. 

Indeed.   One can find quite a bit of similarity in historical promises and quite a large difference in what the giver of said promises actually did.   Comparing promise to promise is (for the most part) comparing lie to lie.    Far better to compare actual mechanics (or mechanics to proposed mechanics).   

Sanders promises free education for all.   Great!    I am all for ensuring that everyone with aptitude and attitude has no barriers to pursuing academic achievement.   But Sanders does not deliver a rational mechanism for achieving this.   Taxing the shit out of people is no solution.   His mechanism does not work.   Great promise, impractical plan.

I think of things like...all the scholarships that could be had just by the billions spent on football.

However, one might point out that the lists you provide in your comparison contrasting Bernies proposed policies with the characteristics of what became Soviet Russia are from vastly different points in a political process.

Yes. It would be more useful to look at the promises of Sanders and compare them to the promises of Lenin - or Mao or Castro, for that matter. It's also critical to look at the circumstances in the countries involved. If we find significant similarities in those foundations, then it becomes more reasonable to concern ourselves with the outcomes.

Sanders wants to spend a lot of money on people, but he isn't yet talking about breaking up big farms and handing out land to all people. And he isn't talking about workers as a class guiding public policy. Additionally, the United States isn't a country in economic despair the way Russia, China, or Cuba were before their revolutions. It's also a country with a much stronger system of laws.

It would be more useful to look at the promises of Sanders and compare them to the promises of Lenin - or Mao or Castro, for that matter.

And then compare them to the promises made by all other politicians.   If one concludes that those promising government handouts, prosperity, etc. are all 'communists' per the former USSR than I do indeed have to question the logic at play.

Now, on the other hand, if Sanders was promoting government expropriation of industry (not just healthcare, I am talking about the core means of production) or was promoting government try to control the economy (a command economy vs. market economy) or that the D party be the only party and to eliminate democracy, or anything like this then we would indeed be able to correlate Sanders with the former USSR.

“It's also critical to look at the circumstances in the countries involved. If we find significant similarities in those foundations, then it becomes more reasonable to concern ourselves with the outcomes.”

Indeed.  A good point that I considered but did not include in my post.  And I agree with TiG that concerns about ultimate economic collapse and potential deterioration to authoritarian rule are not confined to socio-economic structures supposedly based on socialist or Marxist models.  But certainly policies or ideas that do not appear to be rationally based on a reasonable method of paying for them could accelerate such a collapse, yes?

Certainly those sorts of concerns are less “whack” (as our friend JBB says), than the claims that Trump is the new Hitler.

“Your logic is whack, based on irrational fear.”

“Trumpism is an "Authoritarian Nightmare"...”

Uh huh...

One can argue that Sanders' policies, if enacted, could fundamentally harm the USA.   Indeed, I have made such an argument elsewhere.

My focus here is to encourage people to think this through and realize that Sanders is not proposing anything leading to the system of the former USSR but rather leading to the systems popular in Europe and in particular the Nordic nations.   The system Sanders seeks is quite clearly social democracy.

The system Sanders seeks is quite clearly social democracy.

I agree.  Certainly not comparable to Soviet era communism in its current presentation.

Actually it was Lenin and Trotsky who made the promises;  Stalin came later.

Good point. Which might beg the question, who comes later if Bernie's policies create more dire economic consequences (regardless of whether one labels them now, or correlates them now to, policies of "social democracy" or of "communism")?  Gawd I can be such a troll sometimes....(-:

Democratic socialism is a theoretical model which is based on capitalism no longer existing as the economic engine.

Oops, of course you are correct, I meant to say, "... what happens when social democracy becomes unsustainable?"  Crap, now I can't even criticize Bernie for fucking up the terms... (-:

who comes later if Bernie's policies create more dire economic consequences

Hard to say.   I wonder who comes to save us from a 23+ trillion (and growing) national debt?    I have been looking for a solution for decades while the problem grows increasingly worse due to irresponsible federal politicians who have unfortunately realized that borrowing from individuals who will be born decades from now is much easier than cutting programs or taxing voters who will get pissed and vote them out of office.   It is a profound problem of kicking the can.

what happens when social democracy becomes unsustainable?

What happens when social democracy becomes unsustainable is a very good question.    We should also ask what happens when the concentration of wealth grows even worse in the USA?    Also, what happens when AI eliminates jobs and there are insufficient numbers of jobs to retrain people to assume?   What happens when healthcare costs cut into the standard of living of too many in the middle class?

All systems have their problems.   I certainly encourage people to try to identify problems and propose solutions.   But we cannot focus on the vulnerability of one system and ignore those of others.

I have never called or believed Bernie Sanders to be a communist. Socialist yes, communist no. Imho socialism is the next step below communism. Socialism in other countries has pretty much been abysmal failures for a number of reasons. One only has to look at Venezuela for a prime example. As it was said, Bernie probably has good intentions, But to quote the old saying, "The road to Hell is always paved with good intentions.". I was raised by a mother who was a staunch Democrat but taught me to always keep a open mind and make my own observations and decisions. I am and always have believed in capitalism.  Based on that, I cannot in good conscience support Bernie Sander's ideas for this country. Another thing about Bernie is that I have heard very little on his stance on the military, it's pay and allowances, and his plans for it in general. Is he deliberately keeping very low profile on that? Curious to hear what Bernie supporters think on that.

So, focusing on the topic, you do not correlate what Sanders is proposing to the system of Communism per the former USSR?

In the strictest sense of the word as it relates to the former USSR historically, no I do not.

Neither do I.   Not even remotely close.

He is obviously a social democrat.   His policies correlate very well with those of social democracies around the world.   Plus, Sanders himself routinely points to the social democracies of the Nordic nations as his exemplar.

He is a big government statist who sees the best system to be one in which government provides public services funded by a highly taxed and regulated capitalist system and higher taxes by all.

That is social democracy;  not socialism and certainly not communism.

Agreed TiG...but you and I both know the 'socialism' tag will resonate with the incumbent's base and will be the 'bogeyman' uttered in every ad, in every tweet, and in every debate should Sanders gain the nomination.

Exactly.   I remain curious as to why Sanders does not label himself properly as a social democrat.   He argues that he wants to implement the policies of social democracies such as those in Europe in the USA.   So why use the label 'socialist' when you seek to implement policies of capitalist economies??

Nothing will energize the simpletons more than that simple phrase and this, like any election, will come down to turn out, and hence the Democrat leadership's worries about bringing in those who may not like trump, but certainly would never vote for a self-avowed 'socialist'.

Quite obviously the case ...     Worse is the absolute stubborn insistence on holding a label-based understanding of ' socialism '.   There is no interest in learning but a great interest in defining ' socialism ' as ' anything I dislike ' or ' anything that is bad '.   It blows my mind that people refuse to call out by well-established, unambiguous names, that which they dislike.   The term ' statism ' is well-defined and properly applies to political proposals such as those of Sanders.    The term ' redistribution of wealth ' likewise.   Calling everything ' socialism ' is maddeningly ignorant.

Once again, the perfect storm is brewing that may give this most imperfect of souls another four years...as the truth and reason has somehow been rendered moot in any discussion.

Trump is no doubt going to be reelected unless something major happens like a recession.   If Sanders is the nominee Trump wins.   The only candidate who seems to have the means to counter Trump is Bloomberg.   He has a long battle to get the nomination and if the Ds keep eating their own, they will have Sanders as their nominee or a brokered convention that might spit out Biden sustained by a reemergence of super delegates.   That mess will alienate many D voters who will stay home in protest.   And, in result, Trump wins.   

What a mess.

TiG. Out of curiosity, is the reference to his "specific plan", at the end of the article, intended to include a link? If not, not a being deal. Thought the blue font may indicate a link. Read that as I would rather click your link, if any, than search for his plan on google.

Your comment on good intentions tells the story. We all know the old idiom. The comparison, as suggested below, seems more appropriately made, not after Stalin, but before. I think there is a general disbelief in the efficacy of his proposals, and the sustainability thereof, which, after failure, could lead to undesired consequences. 

I'm sure Bloomberg won't be the last. As I recall, Clinton hit him on the issue last cycle.

Out of curiosity, is the reference to his "specific plan", at the end of the article, intended to include a link?

I was just emphasizing it with color.   But I just now changed the article to use the link I used earlier (to a summary of Sanders' proposal) on that blue text.

I think there is a general disbelief in the efficacy of his proposals, and the sustainability thereof, which, after failure, could lead to undesired consequences. 

I think you are correct.   I do not see Sanders prevailing in a general election.   But this article is very specifically focused on the claim that Sanders' proposals are a path to 'communism' per the former USSR rather than proposals that one would find in social democracies in effect today.   Clearly, Sanders is trying to pump up the social democracy in the USA.   We are a light social democracy starting with FDR.   Sanders wants us to be a full social democracy and the Nordic nations are his exemplar.

What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

Why make this comparison?  Sanders is not a Communist and never made that claim.


Try to do more than simply claim Sanders is a commie.  

My suggestion for you is to try not to normalize Socialist positions, which I believe is your purpose here.


This is intended to be an adult discussion

Let's find out.

Why make this comparison?  Sanders is not a Communist and never made that claim.

Because people are labeling him a communist.     Look at how I opened the article:

During the last D debate in Las Vegas, Bloomberg implied that Sanders' positions were in effect communism on the grounds that Sanders was trying to throw out capitalism.    Was he correct?   It seems that a number of people think that the mere fact that Sanders (inexplicably by the way) self-labels as 'socialist' means that he is ipso facto a card-carrying member of the Communist party of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.   They will even 'prove' this by noting he honeymooned in Russia.

That is why I wrote this article.

My suggestion for you is to try not to normalize Socialist positions, which I believe is your purpose here.

What?   On what basis do you make that allegation?

Because people are labeling him a communist. 

It's fairly simple to dispose of that. Most people know the difference. That leaves us with a Socialist advocating for "Healthcare for all", "College for all" and a "Green New Deal" which the country can't ever afford. There is no need to spend time on the failed Soviet Union. Focus could have been spent on the failed Socialist Europe.

On what basis do you make that allegation?

You went right there in 3.1.18 IMO Sanders is genuinely trying to make things better for the non-wealthy.

Telling us that all these things are good for people is doing a disservice. Telling people the results of such causes is what we need to see. That's when we always arrive at the point of either "real" Socialism has never been tried or Bernies variety of Social Democrat is somehow different.

It's fairly simple to dispose of that.

It should be.   I wrote this article because this occurred right here on NT where a number of members insisted that Sanders is promoting 'communism' per the former USSR.   Hell, Vic, read some of the comments here.   In spite of the glaringly obvious fact that Sanders is promoting social democracy, people are actually trying to argue that he 'really' is just trying to move the USA to be like the former USSR.     

You went right there in 3.1.18 IMO Sanders is genuinely trying to make things better for the non-wealthy.

I was commenting that I think Sanders actually thinks he would be helping the non-wealthy.  I was saying that I think he believes what he is saying.   That he has honorable intentions.   Not that what he proposes will actually work.    What do you think I was saying?   Did you take my words to mean that I support Sanders' approach??

Read what I wrote upfront in the article:

TiG (article) ☞  By the way, I am NOT (in any way) a Sanders supporter.   Although I think he genuinely has good intentions, I find his specific plan (as a whole) to be irrational and it would fail (assuming it ever got off the ground).

With all I have written, you take this one sentence:

TiG @3.1.18 ☞  IMO Sanders is genuinely trying to make things better for the non-wealthy.

... and somehow —ignoring the entire article and all of my comments— translate that into something like:  IMO Sanders' policies would make things better for the non-wealthy.

Telling us that all these things are good for people is doing a disservice.

And clearly that is not what I did.   Read above and correct your interpretation.

Telling people the results of such causes is what we need to see. 

What on Earth are you talking about?   Where do you find me doing anything of the sort?

That's when we always arrive at the point of either "real" Socialism has never been tried or Bernies variety of Social Democrat is somehow different.

Sanders' proposals are social democracy.   He points to the Nordic nations as his exemplar.   Social democracy is not 'socialism'.   Social democracy is based on capitalism, not socialism.   I have explained that repeatedly in this article (upfront and then in comments).   There is no excuse for not at least recognizing what I wrote.

[deleted]

Amazing thing to behold, right?    It does not matter what Sanders says,  it does not matter what I write,  somehow an entirely different meaning emerges from words.

Hell, Vic, read some of the comments here. 

You created that debate:

What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

[Deleted]

What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

Yes, I created the debate.   That question (if you actually read the article) is designed to challenge readers to demonstrate that Sanders' policies/positions are 'communist' as per the former USSR.

I submit that his policies/positions are clearly NOT those of the former USSR but in reality are down the middle of the plate those of social democracy.

Yes, I created the debate.   That question (if you actually read the article) is designed to challenge readers to demonstrate that Sanders' policies/positions are 'communist' as per the former USSR.

Why do that?  Most of us know the difference between a Communist and a Socialist. So you are going to sit back and prove that Sanders is not a Communist all day long?  To what ends?  I think it must be to normalize Sanders. That would be a waste of time IMO. You know that any country that has a healthy middle class would have a difficult time electing a Socialist. 


I submit that his policies/positions are clearly NOT those of the former USSR but in reality are down the middle of the plate those of social democracy.

I rest my case.

Why do that? 

Why do what?   Create the question?

Most of us know the difference between a Communist and a Socialist.

Demonstrably false.   The opposite is true.   You did not even profile the question correctly.   The question is not communist vs. socialist but rather communist (per former USSR) vs. social democrat.

So you are going to sit back and prove that Sanders is not a Communist all day long? 

Knowledge is a good thing Vic.   I think it is good to be informed and have one's known truths substantiated by fact.   Much better than 'knowing' by simply parroting slogans.   A great way to tease out truth is to pose a question for debate and have adults thoughtfully and honestly try to answer the question.

To what ends?  I think it must be to normalize Sanders.

Again you insult me.   I have told you explicitly that is not the case.   I have also, in this article, upfront stated that I am not a fan of Sanders' positions.   So not only are you again knowingly and purposely insulting me, you are implicitly calling me a liar.    So to what end do you engage in this behavior?

That would be a waste of time IMO. You know that any country that has a healthy middle class would have a difficult time electing a Socialist. 

Sanders is a social democrat.    He labels himself a socialist but his policies are those of social democracy.   And I have stated that I do not see Sanders winning in the general for the reasons you imply.

I submit that his policies/positions are clearly NOT those of the former USSR but in reality are down the middle of the plate those of social democracy.I rest my case.

You rest what case?   

I stated that Sanders policies are those of social democracy, not those of the former USSR.   So where have you made a case that my posit is wrong?   I see nothing from you that is even the beginning of an argument.    

So show me your 'case' because best I can tell you have put forth exactly nothing.   You have spent you time complaining that I wrote this article and being purposely offensive.

Why do that?  Most of us know the difference between a Communist and a Socialist. So you are going to sit back and prove that Sanders is not a Communist all day long?  To what ends?  I think it must be to normalize Sanders. That would be a waste of time IMO. You know that any country that has a healthy middle class would have a difficult time electing a Socialist. 

The country is at the point where many believe we need Bernie Sanders more than we need Jeff Bezos.

If political Washington can normalize the idea that 'greed is good' then establishing a new normal shouldn't be surprising.  Democrats have a number of candidates defending 'greed is good' ideology; they are quite adept at using greed to obtain political support.  Sanders is promising big things but he hasn't promised taxing someone else will pay for it.

Maybe its time to normalize Bernie Sanders.  The 'greed is good' ideology hasn't worked very well.

Sanders is promising big things but he hasn't promised taxing someone else will pay for it.

Actually he has.   His proposals are based on redistribution of wealth.

I have every confidence that the American middle class is doing well enough to reject a Socialist system.


Maybe its time to normalize Bernie Sanders.

Let's see what the democrats do with him/to him at the Convention.

Actually he has.

Only in general terms. Not realistically. His system would cost about 3 or 4 times the total US GDP.


 His proposals are based on redistribution of wealth.

Of course. What did Margaret Thatcher teach us about that?


It does sound like you are trying to normalize Sanders. Do any of our readers see it that way?

Only in general terms. Not realistically. His system would cost about 3 or 4 times the total US GDP.

Did you not read what I just wrote?   I stated that Sanders' policies involve redistribution of wealth.  Your response makes no sense in context of what I wrote.

It does sound like you are trying to normalize Sanders.

You are ignoring what I am writing (or are not bothering to carefully read my words) and purposely repeating your offensive allegation.   That is trolling.  I suggest you leave.

That is trolling.

No it isn't. It's just like you persisting that not all progressives should be condemned for the actions of one. How long did you persist with that?  I'm making a case that asking people to defend a position that is obviously wrong must have a reason. 

No it isn't.

Yeah, Vic, it is.  Your are repeating an offensive allegation after I corrected you.   

It's just like you persisting that not all progressives should be condemned for the actions of one.

Do you think that all progressives should be condemned for the actions of one??

I'm making a case that asking people to defend a position that is obviously wrong must have a reason.

Really?  So you think Sanders is a 'communist' per the former USSR?   Really?

Well, then, make your case.   I just happen to have an article with a well-framed question:

What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

And for your convenience, here are the defining characteristics of the former USSR:

• Single-party, authoritarian rule
• Party class vs. all others;  riches or rags
• Brutal regime eliminating enemies and forcing compliance by government forces (death, torture, etc.)
• Centrally planned command economy controlling virtually all relevant means of production and distribution
• No liberty, individual life controlled by government
• No democracy

Let's see you make an actual argument now to support your position that Sanders is a 'communist' per the former USSR.

Really?  So you think Sanders is a 'communist' per the former USSR?   Really?

Talk about ignoring words! Asking people to defend a position that is wrong = Asking them to prove Sanders is a Communist. Do you get it now? The position that Sanders is a Communist is flat out wrong. The funny part is you are now trying to even get me to defend it!!!!!

Let's see you make an actual argument now to support your position that Sanders is a 'communist' per the former USSR.

My position?  Or the one you want to put everyone in?


For the record:  Sanders is not a Communist!  Communism is an economic & moral disaster.
                          Sanders is a Socialist!             Socialism is an economic & moral disaster.



Have a good one.

Let's see what the democrats do with him/to him at the Convention.

Reagan Democrats will protest.  But that only reinforces that true, blue Democrats are only in it for the money.

Reagan Democrats (and Reagan Republicans) have thoroughly demonstrated they cannot govern.  The country has been running on autopilot for the last 40 years.

How many times has the financial sector burned down the country over the last 40 years?  Why should banks, insurance companies, and stock brokers be the only ones allowed matches? 

The position that Sanders is a Communist is flat out wrong.

Oh so with all your complaining about this article, you are telling me that you actually agree with my posit ?   Naturally, given all your complaining, one would interpret your words ' position that is wrong ' to mean the position that Sanders is a social democrat.    You complain an awful lot about a posit to be in such full agreement.

1. You come into an article where I am clearly encouraging those who blindly claim Sanders is a 'communist' per the former USSR (and you can see that people are indeed doing that) to think that through.   
2. You (privately and silently) agree that Sanders is obviously not a 'communist'.   
3. You do not state your agreement.
4. Instead you choose to accuse me of trying to normalize Sanders simply because I have provided a forum for people to think more deeply about their view that Sanders is a 'communist'.

"Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat," said Steve Schmidt, a Republican political consultant who ran Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign and opposes Trump. "He is a socialist, and he supported communist revolutionaries all over the Western hemisphere in the 1980s at the height of the Cold War. These positions are antithetical to the values of the country, and certainly explains why the Trump campaign is so enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders as an opponent."

The Sanders campaign declined a request by NBC News to comment on his past statements about leftist governments.

'Free health care, free education, free housing'

Much about Sanders' stances on Soviet-backed U.S. adversaries has previously been reported, but political experts say the story remains unknown to most American voters. Key episodes include:

This article asks:   What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

If you are going to simply present the words of others you could at least provide words that answer the topical question.   

[ Also, do not plagiarize.  Give credit to those who actually forged those thoughts. ]

google

This article asks:   What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

Do you have an answer?   Something you can articulate with your own words?

Lol, are you getting a headache from banging your forehead on the desk yet ?

What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

The former USSR is irrelevant. Sanders advocates free health care for all, free College for all and the "Green New Deal." Any of which are unsustainable and together represent 3 or 4 times the GDP of the United States.

That should be the starting point of this discussion, unless you don't want to discuss that?

The former USSR is irrelevant.

I agree.   The problem is that a lot of people are claiming that Sanders is a 'communist' per the former USSR.   This article exists to debate that claim.

Sanders advocates free health care for all, free College for all and the "Green New Deal." Any of which are unsustainable and together represent 3 or 4 times the GDP of the United States.

Correct in principle  (the numbers are questionable because the policies are not well defined).

That should be the starting point of this discussion, unless you don't want to discuss that?

This is my article, Vic.   If you do not like the question I framed then why are you here?   Write your own article and pose whatever question you wish.   I will not come into your article and personally insult you and complain about the topic.

... unless you don't want to discuss that?

Pay attention to the comments I have made about Sanders' policies on other articles.   You will not find me endorsing Sanders' platform;  quite the opposite.   So cease the inferences that I am a Sanders supporter.   I find that offensive (have you noticed?) because I am ideologically against statism.   

 I will not come into your article and personally insult you and complain about the topic.

You take my criticism as a personal insult?  

I refer you to Post 1.5.4.  That's what a personal insult looks like. And cleverly done too! (As usual).


 So cease the inferences that I am a Sanders supporter.  

I never said you were, but should he be the eventual nominee an article pointing out that he is at least not a Communist might influence some into thinking he's not so bad.

Vic, Bernie Sanders is not a communist. Why should anyone avoid saying he is not a communist just so as to conform to your ideas about what could effect the election?

You take my criticism as a personal insult? 

That was not criticism, you alleged that I am trying to normalize Sanders.   I told you that was wrong.   You continue to repeat that allegation.   You know I find it offensive yet you repeat.   Further, and importantly, I told you my intent.   You stating otherwise means you think you know my intent better than I do and thus that I am lying. 

I never said you were, but should he be the eventual nominee an article pointing out that he is at least not a Communist might influence some into thinking he's not so bad.

That is not what this article does.   This article challenges flawed thinking.   If someone called Trump a Nazi, do you think that an article which shows that to be ridiculous would be normalizing Trump?

If someone called Trump a Nazi, do you think that an article which shows that to be ridiculous would be normalizing Trump?

You picked a perfect analogy. Trump is called that all the time, right here on NT. Do I think anybody calling him that actually believes it? Of course not, they simply hate the President. I think it's kind of the same with those who call Sanders a Communist. Socialist is not a strong enough word for them so they need to cross the line.

I refer you to Post 1.5.4.  That's what a personal insult looks like. And cleverly done too! (As usual).

You did not answer my question:

TiG @2.3.6 ☞ If someone called Trump a Nazi, do you think that an article which shows that to be ridiculous would be normalizing Trump?

Yes?

I think it's kind of the same with those who call Sanders a Communist. Socialist is not a strong enough word for them so they need to cross the line.

And when I challenge that false thinking you accuse me of trying to normalize Sanders.   

Answer my question.

I refer you to Post 1.5.4.  That's what a personal insult looks like. And cleverly done too! (As usual).

But you felt perfectly comfortable using the same exact words in comment @2.3?

There's a Greek word for that too...

Who gives a shit, he's running against Trump not Putin.

Not sure I follow your reasoning.   It makes a big difference if the D nominee is a 'communist' per the former USSR vs. a social democrat per Nordic nations, much of Europe.   Right?   Monster difference between the two systems.

So he's not a communist …..wow I'll sleep better tonight know that.

Good that you recognize that.   Do you have a problem with getting to the bottom of allegations?   After all Bloomberg effectively called Sanders a communist during the debates.   Is it really so out of line to question if Bloomberg was correct and why?

Meta, removed for context

Since you have returned to my article to deposit a meta complaint, you could at least answer my question:

If someone called Trump a Nazi, do you think that an article which shows that to be ridiculous would be an attempt to normalize Trump rather than an attempt to tease out truth?

If someone called Trump a Nazi, do you think that an article which shows that to be ridiculous would be an attempt to normalize Trump rather than an attempt to tease out truth?

I'll wait patiently for your article on that TiG.   (-:

I'm willing to bet that the average Bernie supporter, or any leftist for that matter, would be perfectly happy accepting the allegation that Trump is a Nazi without so much as a shred of analysis.  In fact, some might be inclined to forcibly stop discussion on the matter at all if it threatens to debunk the allegation.  Ironic, ain't it?

The point of this article is to go past allegations and look at the facts, not to simply add more unsubstantiated claims.    

Bernie is a Socialist, he is probably closer to a communist than a capitalist but that is a moot point.

Social democracy is capitalism.   So we are comparing 'communism' per the former USSR to social democracy.   The topic question is:   What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

What is your answer?

I'll wait patiently for your article on that TiG. 

Not mine.   That would be for Vic.   But I will not drop into his article and repeatedly accuse him of normalizing Trump simply because he framed an analytical exercise to help those making that Nazi claim understand why they are wrong.

I'm willing to bet that the average Bernie supporter, or any leftist for that matter, would be perfectly happy accepting the allegation that Trump is a Nazi without so much as a shred of analysis.  In fact, some might be inclined to forcibly stop discussion on the matter at all if it threatens to debunk the allegation.  Ironic, ain't it?

That is the problem with partisanship.   It is often blind to facts and reason.   Very emotional ... very religious.   Driven largely by stubbornness at the expense of objective, critical analysis.

If someone called Trump a Nazi, do you think that an article which shows that to be ridiculous would be an attempt to normalize Trump rather than an attempt to tease out truth?

Are you sure that's what you want?  Ok....I notice that you have never written an article or any articles to clear Trump of the obscene charge of "Nazi" or any of the other incredulous charges lodged against him and others. You came out at a time when it's clear that Bernie Sanders could very likely be the democratic nominee to make sure we all know that he is not a Communist.

That would be for Vic. 

Why would that be for me? You say your'e not a Sanders supporter and I know your'e not a Trump supporter - therefore, why would you confine yourself to clearing one and not the other?

Ok....I notice that you have never written an article or any articles to clear Trump of the obscene charge of "Nazi" or any of the other incredulous charges lodged against him and others.

There are an uncountable number of articles I have not written.  What kind of an observation is that Vic?   You are inferring again?   If I have not written an article you make an inference?   I have not written an article on Bloomberg either.   What is the inference?    I have not written an article blasting Trump either, what is the inference?

You came out at a time when it's clear that Bernie Sanders could very likely be the democratic nominee to make sure we all know that he is not a Communist.

Here you go:

• Sanders becomes the clear leader
• Bloomberg calls him a communist (in effect) publicly.
• Members on NT claim he is a communist.
• I write an article showing how silly that is.

And Vic concludes what exactly?

Why would that be for me? You say your'e not a Sanders supporter and I know your'e not a Trump supporter - therefore, why would you confine yourself to clearing one and not the other?

Because I want to come into your article and show you how to thoughtfully engage a topic.   I want to make comments on your topical question that are based on facts and reason.   I want to show you that one can engage in adult discussion without repeatedly making offensive allegations of the author out of thin air.

Bloomberg calls him a communist (in effect) publicly.

And Liz Warren said this a few nights ago:

WARREN: You know, but Bernie and I agree on a lot of things, but I think I would make a better president than Bernie.

And the reason for that is that getting a progressive agenda enacted is going to be really hard, and it's going to take someone who digs into the details to make it happen.

Bernie and I both wanted to help rein in Wall Street. In 2008, we both got our chance. But I dug in. I fought the big banks. I built the coalitions, and I won.

Bernie and I both want to see universal health care, but Bernie's plan doesn't explain how to get there, doesn't show how we're going to get enough allies into it, and doesn't show enough about how we're going to pay for it.

news.yahoo


Did Warren have it right?


After all that's the valid criticism of Sanders.

The only thing I'm sure of is that Trump is a narcissistic, crooked, dishonest, moron.   

Although there was a rumor he had a copy of Mein Kampf on his night table years ago, I wouldn't call him a Nazi.  I like to stay with what is known for a fact. 

Would you like me to write some articles on the topic Vic? 

I want to show you that one can engage in adult discussion without repeatedly making offensive allegations of the author out of thin ai

Well, here is your chance!  As we speak - go to post # 2.3.26.....Show me how to engage in an adult conversation!


Show us all how to deal with that!

Did Warren have it right?

Warren is correct, IMO, that Sanders has impractical proposals.   Warren is incorrect in her assessment of herself.  She is a panderer who will not survive super Tuesday.

After all that's the valid criticism of Sanders.

Apparently you have not noticed that this article is about a specific allegation on Sanders - that of being a 'communist'.    It is not designed to host general analysis of the candidate.

All articles have topical boundaries;  in part, that helps them be manageable.   This article has a very well defined topic and boundary.

If you want to write a general critical article on Sanders then please do so.  If you want to thoughtfully contribute here, then explain why you do not think Sanders is a 'communist' (since you have already stated that as your position).

Vic, Vic, are you saying that telling the truth about Trump is not "adult discussion" ?  lol.

Be happy that Perrie is strict or I would be compelled to give you a piece of my mind.

Show me how to engage in an adult conversation!

I did not write @2.3.26 so all I can do is illustrate moderation.   Since JR has just come onto this article I am not going to jump down his throat on his first comment.   There, you now see how I moderate for that example.   

You, however, should consider writing something near this topic or find another place to vent.

..Show me how to engage in an adult conversation!Show us all how to deal with that!

We KNOW that Trump is a HABITUAL liar, we KNOW that he is a crook, we KNOW that he is a bigot, we KNOW that he is a moron, and we KNOW that he is a cheat. 

I am not speculating. The only question is, when in hell is this country going to do something about it. 

John, are you going to just keep going until I must say something?   This article is not about Trump.

Apparently you have not noticed that this article is about a specific allegation on Sanders - that of being a 'communist'.

I haven't missed that at all.

 It is not designed to host general analysis of the candidate.

So, criticism of him as a Socialist is off topic. That's fine, but I fail to see why anyone would debate what Sanders is. That would seem to be indesputable. You did get a lot of response, so you did something right. I want to go fishing with you!

Since JR has just come onto this article I am not going to jump down his throat on his first comment.   There, you now see how I moderate for that example.   

It's not his first comment. (check #2.3.4)

You, however, should consider writing something near this topic or find another place to vent.

A place to vent? I let you off easy - don't push it!

Vic asked you if you were going to write something in defense of Trump. All I did was explain to Vic how that is not possible. 

But whatever. 

So, criticism of him as a Socialist is off topic. 

You can criticize Sanders if you want.   I am saying that this article is not about a general criticism of Sanders.   It is clearly (obviously) about addressing the allegation that he is a 'communist' per the former USSR.   So I am not interested in someone launching a thread that is a general criticism of Sanders (or anyone) in this article.

Articles have topics and scopes.   

That's fine, but I fail to see why anyone would debate what Sanders is. That would seem to be indesputable. 

Well clearly the do debate this.   There are a number of individuals here on NT who think he is a 'communist'.   So the discussion / debate is relevant.  Right?

A place to vent? I let you off easy - don't push it!

You are tossing out nonsense and trying to get something to stick.   I think you need to either contribute to this topic or leave.   Enough with the feeble attacks.

I have already answered : he's not a communist 

Okay.

JR you can see what I am dealing with here with Vic.  

I didn't know I was the topic.

You are/were not the topic;  you were injecting gratuitous meta like @2.3.41.   I think I have suggested several times that if you have no interest in discussing this topic or at least something in the ballpark that it would be appropriate to go elsewhere.

[deleted]

In fact, some might be inclined to forcibly stop discussion on the matter at all if it threatens to debunk the allegation.  Ironic, ain't it?

Link?

(or is that just something you made up on the spur of the moment?)

(or is that just something you made up on the spur of the moment?)

It is indeed something I made up but based on historical observation of large groups of people who have actually disrupted and/or shut down discussion or presentations on several occasions because they labelled the speaker as "Alt Right" or some sort of Trump supporter.  So going forward, shall I deny reality when I deliver tongue-in-cheek quips about those who might be inclined to label Trump a Nazi without question/analysis?

Yep it looks like he is. 

nypost

What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

He's more of a Cuban communist. Much of what he envisions they already have like free education and healthcare. 

He's more of a Cuban communist. Much of what he envisions they already have like free education and healthcare. 

He does not seek an authoritarian regime which oppresses the people.   He definitely seeks public services offered via social democracy but also seeks democratic control of social matters and the workplace.   Very much unlike Cuba and very like the Nordic nations.

The Nordic nation’s are proudly capitalist and resent his references to them as socialist 

Germany has free higher education and I don't believe that they are communist, Dean.

The Nordic nation’s are proudly capitalist and resent his references to them as socialist 

Correct.  The Nordic nations are indeed capitalist.   They are social democracies.   Sanders' use of the term 'socialism' has been strange throughout.   That is partly why I wrote this article.   To help people get past the labels and actually think this through.

Sanders is a social democrat.  His policies are social democratic policies, not socialist or communist policies.   As noted in this article.

The Nordic nation’s are proudly capitalist and resent his references to them as socialist 

And yet, that's exactly what you do. You decry Nordic-style social democratic reforms as socialism all the time.

At a time when you should be burning Bernie’s principles to the ground you tack in his direction.

Quote me.    I will go first.  You then make your case with a quote.

TiG (article) ☞ By the way, I am NOT (in any way) a Sanders supporter.   Although I think he genuinely has good intentions, I find his specific plan (as a whole) to be irrational and it would fail (assuming it ever got off the ground).

He does not seek an authoritarian regime which oppresses the people.

Has any communist dictator seized power by promising to oppress the people?

Tell me why (facts and reason) you think Sanders is trying to seize power and create an authoritarian regime.   After all, we could just as easily claim that for any of the other candidates and, indeed, we can claim that of the sitting PotUS.   

Tell me why (facts and reason) you think Sanders is trying to seize power and create an authoritarian regime.

I never said I thought that.

I stated:

TiG @3.1.2 ☞ He [Sanders] does not seek an authoritarian regime which oppresses the people.

You replied with this question:

Tacos @3.1.9 ☞ Has any communist dictator seized power by promising to oppress the people?

Now you tell me that I should not infer that you were trying to rebut my statement @3.1.2.    If we cannot even glean the most obvious inference from your question then why even pose it?   At the very least your question implies that Sanders might be seeking to establish an authoritarian regime which oppresses the people.   Yet you do not offer any support even for that.

So what, specifically, are you trying to posit with your response?    

You replied with this question:

Yes. The point being that communist oppressors achieve power by promising to solve everyone's problems, not by promising to oppress them. Who would?

But what actually happens? They end up oppressing the people.

For that reason, pointing out that Sanders does not say he is seeking an authoritarian regime doesn't tell us anything about what will actually happen.

Then, Tacos, by that reasoning we can say that any of the candidates (including Trump) might be seeking an authoritarian regime because (of course) none of them will tell us ahead of time.

You are not stating anything that one can work with.   Yeah, all candidates with secret plans will likely not tell us of them.   Great, what do we do with that?

You are not stating anything that one can work with.

Yes I am. If you would listen, you could work with it. I'm telling you that Bernie's lack of a stated intention to be authoritarian is irrelevant. You are giving too much weight to the information. You should disregard it. That's how you work with it - by throwing it away. It is not useful information.

Lenin said he was liberating the people. He oppressed them. Same with Mao. Same with Castro. Bernie keeps saying he his on the side of the workers. What does that mean?

If you look to his intentions, ask how they could possibly be implemented. Does he seek to do what communists sought to do? That's the most important question for comparison. If his goals are substantially similar to those noted revolutionaries, then there is cause for concern. Because . . . 

With true communism, I believe you need one of two things to make it work. 1) A population that is 100% on board in their hearts and minds with concepts like collectivism, no personal property, group needs over personal liberty, workers controlling the means of production, etc. or 2) A totalitarian government prepared to consistently and ruthlessly enforce those ideals. Unfortunately, then, we don't end up with workers in charge. Instead it's the military. In any event, the former has yet to be seen on the large scale. The latter is what keeps happening.

by that reasoning we can say that any of the candidates (including Trump) might be seeking an authoritarian regime because (of course) none of them will tell us ahead of time.

People have said that about Trump. They had reasons like the ones I have described. They compared the behavior and speech of Trump and Hitler and found them similar. The same is true for people who think Bernie is a communist.

These people understood - and have frequently made the point - that Hitler didn't tell people he was going to round up millions of German citizens and execute them. He told his people he was going to give them back their pride and restore the glory of Germany (Make Germany Great Again). He pointed at scapegoats, but he didn't point at ovens. He didn't tell people he was going to immediately start a war that would kill tens of millions of people all over the world. He didn't tell people he would make it impossible to remove him from power without killing him.

So people see similarities between Trump's rise to power and Hitler's rise to power. Then they look at the result with Hitler and they have a reason to worry.

Based on that, they fear Trump will turn America into something resembling Nazi Germany. Finally, that's a starting point for a discussion. I don't agree with their conclusions, but I will at least concede there is a basic logic to it. From there, we can counter and point out that conditions in America are very different from 1920s/30s Germany, so the similarity is diluted and therefore less probative. We can also say lots of other politicians have talked like that and it turned out fine.

It's harder to make those disclaimers about people who promise that communist policies are their savior. That seems to go bad every time. That's why I think the proper framework for your discussion is to compare speech and promises first. You are skipping a critical step.

If you don't see similarities - enough to make a person worry - then we're done! There's nothing to talk about. If all Bernie wants to do is redistribute a little wealth and expand some government benefits here and there, then he's just another "tax and spend liberal." Nothing to see here. But if he's saying things like the workers should control everything, capitalism is evil, private property is evil, the Constitution is in the way, and so on, then we can't afford to vote for him.

I'm telling you that Bernie's lack of a stated intention to be authoritarian is irrelevant.

I am telling you that you can infer ANY intent from silence.   What you infer from Sanders you could infer from any other candidate.   Right?   The silence is meaningless, no conclusion can be drawn from it.

Does he seek to do what communists sought to do? 

Does he?   Do you have a supporting argument that he does?  If so, make it.  ( Note: communists = as defined by the former USSR )

With true communism, I believe you need one of two things to make it work. 1) A population that is 100% on board in their hearts and minds with concepts like collectivism, no personal property, group needs over personal liberty, workers controlling the means of production, etc. or 2) A totalitarian government prepared to consistently and ruthlessly enforce those ideals. Unfortunately, then, we don't end up with workers in charge. Instead it's the military. In any event, the former has yet to be seen on the large scale. The latter is what keeps happening

We are talking about one and only one definition of 'communism' — that defined by the former USSR.    This was established upfront.  You are adding extraneous and unnecessary factors.   I have plenty to say in response to what you wrote but it has nothing to do with the question.   Just stick with the allegation that Sanders is a 'communist' as per the former USSR.   Otherwise you are not operating within the context of this article.

People have said that about Trump. They had reasons like the ones I have described. They compared the behavior and speech of Trump and Hitler and found them similar. The same is true for people who think Bernie is a communist.

Indeed.   People extrapolate from factors that can lead them in 360°.   Extrapolation is only good when it can be done with some level of confidence.   Literally, one can extrapolate anything from anything.   Not valuable.   Do you think, for example, it is rational to presume Trump is attempting to establish a role of permanent leadership like Hitler.   If so, then I would expect that one would have more to offer in support of that hypothesis than vague similarities.

I don't agree with their conclusions, but I will at least concede there is a basic logic to it. 

The key, as I have noted, is to extrapolate within governing constraints so that the extrapolation has a high confidence factor.   One could extrapolate that Trump is planning to turn the USA into a giant corporation.   That is irrational, but one could certainly extrapolate to that end.   Basic logic is only as good as the confidence associated with the conclusion.   The analysis needs to be grounded in solid fact and reason.

If you don't see similarities - enough to make a person worry - then we're done! 

List the similarities and explain why we should consider them relevant.   After all, that is the point of this article.   And I am not talking about weak 'possibly could lead to ...' nonsense.   I am talking about practical fact-based reasoning.   I have offered the defining characteristics of the former USSR and the defining characteristics of the typical social democracy.   Very different outcomes and almost painfully obvious which Sanders' policies would favor.    Now, in your analysis, which of those two are most likely given Sanders' stated policies?   That is question one.   Question two then is why?

Does he?   Do you have a supporting argument that he does?  If so, make it.

I asked a question and you literally just repeated it. I'm not making the claim, so I have no requirement to support it.

Just stick with the allegation that Sanders is a 'communist' as per the former USSR.

Why would I do that? You haven't made the allegation and neither have I.

List the similarities and explain why we should consider them relevant. 

I suggested some already, but my personal opinion is that there isn't yet enough to think he is a communist. You seem to think I want to make the claim that Sanders is a communist, but I haven't done that anywhere. Maybe I haven't heard enough of his speeches, but I haven't heard him talk about changing land ownership or instituting worker control of production. I think he just wants to give a way a bunch of stuff he can't pay for. As I suggested elsewhere, I think he is more a tax and spend liberal than a communist.

I asked a question and you literally just repeated it. I'm not making the claim, so I have no requirement to support it.

IMO Sanders is genuinely trying to make things better for the non-wealthy.   I think Lenin and Trotsky also wanted to make things better for the impoverished people of Russia, et. al.   Stalin, Hitler, et. al. were interested in power so 'no' for them.   

But it is difficult to try to get into the minds of people ... especially those long dead.   Sanders is alive and is making proposals.   Are his proposals leading to brutal authoritarian rule, command economy, single-party rule, rags or riches, undemocratic system?   Or are his proposals leading to larger government delivering social programs funded by a highly regulated and taxed capitalist engine and higher taxes on the citizens?    To me the answer is obvious.

Why would I do that? You haven't made the allegation and neither have I.

Because the point of this article is to actually think through the allegation made by many that Sanders is a 'communist' per the former USSR.   This is why I wrote the article Tacos!.    I do not know how I could have been clearer:

During the last D debate in Las Vegas, Bloomberg implied that Sanders' positions were in effect communism on the grounds that Sanders was trying to throw out capitalism.    Was he correct?   It seems that a number of people think that the mere fact that Sanders (inexplicably by the way) self-labels as 'socialist' means that he is ipso facto a card-carrying member of the Communist party of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.   They will even 'prove' this by noting he honeymooned in Russia.

Well.   Okay.   Let's think about this and address the topical question:

What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

This is how I opened the article.

I suggested some already, but my personal opinion is that there isn't yet enough to think he is a communist.

Same here.   To me it is entirely obvious that he is a social democrat.  His policies correlate with social democracy and he is constantly referring people to social democracies in Europe (in particular he references the Nordic nations).    I really am amazed that anyone who compared the defining characteristics of the former USSR to those of social democracies would deem Sanders' proposals to be aligned with the former USSR.

You seem to think I want to make the claim that Sanders is a communist, but I haven't done that anywhere.

Again, I am working within the context of the article.   This article argues that Sanders is not a communist.   Rebuttals naturally would fall on the side of 'Sanders is a communist'.   

Maybe I haven't heard enough of his speeches, but I haven't heard him talk about changing land ownership or instituting worker control of production. I think he just wants to give a way a bunch of stuff he can't pay for. As I suggested elsewhere, I think he is more a tax and spend liberal than a communist.

I totally agree.   Sanders is a tax and spend statist.   He wants to redistribute wealth because he sees far too much concentration of wealth and wants people to all share in the holistic wealth of the USA.

I did not write this article to promote or attack Sanders.   Rather, I wrote this article to encourage people to think through their reasoning when they simple deem Sanders a 'communist' per the USSR.

Actually what I'm starting to wonder is the "Dear Leader" himself actually a Communist? (Although still hasn't come completely out as of this moment).

What Trump’s Trillion-Dollar Bailout Gets Right, and Wrong

The good, the bad—and one very scary aside.

No, Bernie isn't a communist. 

He is a social democrat and his programs fit perfectly with the Nordic countries and much of the rest of Europe. 

And there are a number of good ideas, in principle, underlying Sanders' plan.   But he is way too aggressive ... to the point that he would get nothing done.    I think he wants to see his plan come to fruition in his lifetime and I see no way that could ever happen.    If he were to scale down to something more practical (and critically one that is fiscally and economically responsible) he might win over other supporters.

True, many of his plans are very aggressive but if they weren't it wouldn't be Bernie.

Will they sell in the general election, probably not but who really knows. 

Well, the way things are going, we might find out.   Hard to imagine, but it certainly is possible he could be the D nominee.   Hell, Trump became the R nominee.

Hard to imagine, but it certainly is possible he could be the D nominee. 

I hope he isn't. The majority of independents simply don't support his economic policies, and I think it would be a guaranteed win for Trump if Bernie is the D candidate.

I think it would be a guaranteed win for Trump

No doubt.   I see no way for Sanders to win the general unless something fundamental happens like a recession.

The former USSR's defining characteristics were:

You're comparing promises to results. That doesn't work.

Candidates promise all sorts of things they can't or won't deliver. They also don't let the people in on the ugly side of their plans - i.e. the obvious consequences. For example, Sanders is offering trillions of dollars in government spending, but doesn't want to spend a lot of time talking about how to pay for it. He also talks a lot about various rights or privileges workers should have against their employers, and restrictions that should be levied against them, but he doesn't talk about whether or not most businesses will even be able to comply with his rules and remain viable.

Sanders is not calling for any of that which defined the former USSR

Neither did the communists. Not at first. If they had, they would have never taken power.

What the Communists promised was in line with what Sanders is promising (not exact, but very similar). Obviously no one is going to seize power by promising mass murder and totalitarianism. But historically, the kinds of promises we see from Sanders have led to the conditions for which the USSR and other communist regimes are well known.

Lenin promised "Peace, Land, and Bread." All good stuff!

He didn't tell people he was going to nationalize their farms. He didn't tell them he was going to create the Cheka - the secret police. He didn't give them a heads-up about the censorship and being arrested for disagreeing with the government leadership. He just did it. After he took power.

I'm not saying Sanders will turn the USA into the USSR, or Red China, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela. I can't predict that. I'm just pointing out that the proposed comparison has that fundamental flaw.

Realistically, our system shouldn't allow Sanders to even do the things he is promising without broad democratic support unless he starts ignoring the Constitution. It also helps that the American people are armed.

So he would likely be just another politician who made a bunch of pie-in-the-sky promises he couldn't keep.

You're comparing promises to results. That doesn't work.

My point, of course, is that Sanders is not a USSR-style 'communist'.   The comparison of what he promises to the defining characteristics of USSR-style 'communism' are quite sufficient to illustrate that.   

Neither did the communists. Not at first. If they had, they would have never taken power.

Then you are strongly implying that Sanders is engaging in a bait and switch?

I'm not saying Sanders will turn the USA into the USSR, or Red China, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela. I can't predict that. I'm just pointing out that the proposed comparison has that fundamental flaw.

There is no way to make the comparison that you have put forth.   We would have to wait until Sanders became PotUS and then see what eventually happens to the USA.   We can make the comparison, however, to what USSR-style 'communism' was and what policies Sanders is putting forth.   They do not correlate and the analysis to see that is not very involved.   So your best case is that you think Sanders' policies might possibly end up with the USA taking the form of the former USSR.    Well we could argue that Warren's policies would do likewise and label her communist.   We could argue that Trump is using tactics similar to the early Hitler.   We can always extrapolate to the extreme, but that is rarely helpful.

I prefer to look at the facts that we have and stay grounded.   Show me how you see Sanders' policies reasonably leading to …

• Single-party, authoritarian rule
• Party class vs. all others;  riches or rags
• Brutal regime eliminating enemies and forcing compliance by government forces (death, torture, etc.)
• Centrally planned command economy controlling virtually all relevant means of production and distribution
• No liberty, individual life controlled by government
• No democracy

I don't see it.   Labeling the comparison of policy to the defining characteristics of USSR-style 'communism' as fundamentally flawed provides no information.   It is mere dismissal.   It would be far better to explain how Sanders' policies, being practical, lead to the above list.

We can make the comparison, however, to what USSR-style 'communism' was and what policies Sanders is putting forth.

No, you can't. The comparison you are trying to make doesn't resolve anything because it can't. The truly fundamental flaw - as I pointed out less colloquially - is that you are comparing oranges to apples.

What many people do in this situation is look to the past. And when they look, they see that when other politicians have promised what Sanders promises, those places turn into totalitarian regimes.

I prefer to look at the facts that we have and stay grounded.

Your facts are not relevant to each other. You can tell yourself that you're grounded, but that's not a persuasive argument. The basic framework for your comparison is flawed. You are trying to compare promises to outcomes. That's not logical.

Instead, compare promises to promises. Then, use the known results of past similar promises to project outcomes for the modern versions of those promises. That is far more logical than what you have proposed here.

No, you can't. 

Of course you can.   Human beings are quite good at making analytical comparisons.   We do it all the time:  'That would lead to ...'.   When we evaluate policies of a PotUS candidate we consider how those policies (or similar) have worked in the past and then factor in the balance of our experiences to determine what those policies would lead to in the future.   For example, I suspect you would have plenty of opinions on what would happen if we continue to add extraordinary national debt or if we tried to implement Medicare for All.  

Yes we can.   We have minds capable of tackling this exercise.

Instead, compare promises to promises. Then, use the known results of past similar promises to project outcomes for the modern versions of those promises. That is far more logical than what you have proposed here.

So compare fluff to fluff rather than compare proposed features to actual features?   Hitler made promises that sound much like those of Trump.   Right off the bat:  Make America Great Again and the nationalist policies that comprise it.    How well do you think that promise to promise comparison would work?

I am not interested in excuses.   You do not want to engage in the exercise.   I get it.

So compare fluff to fluff rather than compare proposed features to actual features?

Not what I said. I said compare promises AND THE RESULTS to similar promises.

I am not interested in excuses.   You do not want to engage in the exercise.   I get it.

That is unfair, inaccurate, and dishonest.

Not what I said. I said compare promises AND THE RESULTS to similar promises.

Promises are fluff.   I was not quoting you I was giving my opinion on the concept of promises to promises.   So yes, that is not what you wrote, it is what I wrote.

That is unfair, inaccurate, and dishonest.

Why?   All you have done here is argue that it is impossible for you to consider the positions of Sanders and then compare same to the defining characteristics of the former USSR.   You are not trying to determine if Sanders seeks a USSR-style 'communism' with his policies, you are strictly arguing that the exercise is impossible.   

So how am I being unfair, inaccurate and dishonest with the above conclusion?

you are strictly arguing that the exercise is impossible

Oh I apologize then. I thought you were looking for discussion on the topic of what we might reasonably expect from a Sanders administration, drawing comparisons (rightly or wrongly) from the USSR or other communist regimes.

Instead, what you want is someone to agree with your premise and your approach. I am happy to discuss the topic I described, but it is my opinion that your approach is flawed for the reasons I have explained. If you only want people to agree with you 100% then I guess you're right. I don't want to engage in that kind of exercise.

I thought you were looking for discussion on the topic of what we might reasonably expect from a Sanders administration

Yes.   I am looking for discussion, not excuses as to why we cannot compare the facts.

People call Sanders a communist yet we know what he is proposing.   The facts are right in front of us.   We also know, specifically, what is meant by the system of the former USSR.   Facts, again, right in front of us.

You, however, argue that we must compare the promises of Lenin and Stalin to the promises of Sanders to determine if Sanders is a communist.   You claim it is not possible to use our minds in a rather straightforward analysis and see if the policies of a PotUS (Sanders) would reasonably lead to a USA that follows the model of the former USSR.

Give me a break.

Further, your promises to promises exercise is what is flawed.   Lenin promised that the workers would control the economy with a democratic system based on soviets.   Sanders has no corresponding promise.   Lenin also promised redistribution of wealth.   Sanders promises that too.   Is Sanders therefore a communist?   Every social democracy is based on redistribution of wealth.   Is every leader making redistribution promises in social democracies a communist?    Lenin promised prosperity for the people.   Trump promised and continues to promise prosperity for the people.   Is Trump a communist?

Promises are too fuzzy.   It is the specific policies that have analytical potential.

excuses

Language like this is why you have problems around here. This word you have used twice now is not logically connected to anything I have written. I therefore infer that it is intended to show disrespect to my opinion - and by extension, to me personally. It dismisses by opinion as unworthy and dishonest. Nothing could be more dishonest or untrue.

I have given you logical reasons why your comparison is invalid.  Rather than examine the details of that presentation, you continue to misstate it (e.g. "fluff vs fluff"), thereby arguing a straw man, or you dismiss it as an "excuse."

There is nothing for me to excuse, but your repeated use of the word implies that I am trying to get away with something wrong or shameful. I am simply taking issue with the design of your comparison and I have explained why. 

Change your approach to me or I'm gone.

The facts are right in front of us.

You can produce volumes of facts. Their mere presence doesn't make them relevant.

You, however, argue that we must compare the promises of Lenin and Stalin to the promises of Sanders to determine if Sanders is a communist.

Straw man. You are restating and misstating my argument to argue against it. I did not say that.

For the nth (I've lost track now) time, you must look at the results of similar arguments to extrapolate likely results from modern similar arguments. Comparing a complete system only to promises only of a proposed system doesn't make any logical sense if your goal is to discredit the idea that the proposals will not turn out like the past completed system.

Bottom line: You cannot compare Sanders promises to the USSR. You must compare his promises to those of Lenin, Mao, Castro, and so on. If the promises are different, we have no cause for concern. If they are substantially similar, we have legitimate reasons to begin to worry. Then we can look to differences that might mitigate that worry.

. This word you have used twice now is not logical connected to anything I have written.

If the word 'excuse' is too aggressive then maybe social forums are not for you.   I am not interested in games.   If you do not want to discuss this then find another article.  I have no further interest trying to convince you that the exercise I suggest is routine and commonplace.

Rather than examine the details of that presentation, you continue to misstate it (e.g. "fluff vs fluff"), thereby arguing a straw man, or you dismiss it as an "excuse."

I explained this in detail.  You ignored what I wrote and yet again pretend that I was stating that this was your opinion.   It is my opinion; I stated clearly that it was my opinion, not yours.   My opinion is that political promises are fluff.   I stated that I consider promise vs. promise to be fluff vs fluff.   Did you not read this where I explain in more detail with examples?:

TiG @5.1.6 ☞ Further, your promises to promises exercise is what is flawed.   Lenin promised that the workers would control the economy with a democratic system based on soviets.   Sanders has no corresponding promise.   Lenin also promised redistribution of wealth.   Sanders promises that too.   Is Sanders therefore a communist?   Every social democracy is based on redistribution of wealth.   Is every leader making redistribution promises in social democracies a communist?    Lenin promised prosperity for the people.   Trump promised and continues to promise prosperity for the people.   Is Trump a communist?

That is as clear as I can get.   Forget about promises; anyone can make a promise.  Campaign promises —especially idealized objectives— are largely worthless.    Compare actual policy proposals and actions.

Change your approach to me or I'm gone.

Go.  You are simply repeating your opening argument as to why you cannot make a comparison to determine if Sanders' policies mean he is a communist per the former USSR.   I have no interest in repeating my responses yet again.   I disagree with you and have given my reasons.   You clearly are not going to even attempt to engage in comparing the only facts available so why are you here?   I have no interest in constantly arguing with you about why you will not even attempt to do any analysis.    Cya.

Timely thread here. So far I see a lot of typical BS about how bad Sanders is, or may be, but nothing actually demonstrating how his policies are USSR style Communism. I certainly don't hope Bernie Sanders isn't the Democrat's nominee, but I would also hope (not gonna hold my breath it will happen) we can deal is truths here instead of propaganda. 

Never happen. Imo the right wing is now nothing but propaganda.

Funny though they switched from he's a socialist to he's a communist.

Wonder if they heard it from hannity.

Imo the right wing is now nothing but propaganda.

Oh, for sure there's a lot coming from the right, but our resident populist lefties here aren't lilly pure either. It will get worse as the election season progresses.

Oh I know. I say things like that because I have relatives that watch fox like it is gospel.

They believe every word.

Well, Bernie Sanders has advocated for nationalizing banks, public utilities, and public services in the past.  But Sanders public activism has been reformist rather than revolutionary or anarchist.  Sanders seems to be more aligned with Fabians than with Soviet ideology.

The history of socialism goes back farther than Karl Marx.  The original socialist movement was about social reforms; not economic reforms.  Democratic Socialism traces its roots to the original meaning of socialism to promote social reform.  After Karl Marx introduced economic theory into the socialist movement there has been ongoing conflict between the reformist factions and revolutionary factions within the socialist movement.

Democratic Socialism advocates for a market based mixed economy.  The underlying idea is to regulate capitalism for the benefit of society rather than for the benefit of individuals.  The arguments are actually moot since the United States has become a mercantile economy and is no longer a capitalist economy.

Communism cannot overthrow capitalism in the United States because the United States is no longer capitalist.  A service economy is a mercantile economy engaged in exploiting consumers with fees, rents, and surcharges to obtain individual profit.  A service economy is not about combining labor and resources to produce tangible value (industrial activity) which is the basis for capitalism.  The fears that Bernie Sanders will destroy capitalism are unwarranted simply because the United States is no longer a capitalist economy.

Some argue that people do not understand the meaning of socialism.  I contend that people do not understand the meaning of capitalism, either.

Sanders seems to be more aligned with Fabians than with Soviet ideology.

Spot on.   The Fabians pioneered social democracy.   Sanders is a social democrat.

Democratic Socialism traces its roots to the original meaning of socialism to promote social reform.

Correct.   Democratic socialism, properly understood, is anti-capitalism.   Sanders labeling himself as such makes zero sense.   

Democratic Socialism advocates for a market based mixed economy.

It does indeed.   A market-based economy (rather than a command economy) but based on the people owning and controlling the means of production and distribution.   Not the state, not private aristocracy.

The underlying idea is to regulate capitalism for the benefit of society rather than for the benefit of individuals.

No, that is social democracy.  Democratic socialism is indeed socialism, not capitalism.  Social democracy is a capitalism-based system that regulates industry to fund government programs to benefit society.

Communism cannot overthrow capitalism in the United States because the United States is no longer capitalist. 

Uh ...  not going there in this article.

Correct.   Democratic socialism, properly understood, is anti-capitalism.   Sanders labeling himself as such makes zero sense

I disagree.  Democratic Socialism is not anti-capitalism.  However, Democratic Socialism emphasizes the capitalist benefit for society at large rather than individual benefit.  In Americanized terms, Democratic Socialism prioritizes the community rather than the individual.  The idea of broad prosperity in a capitalist economy conforms to the basic tenets of Democratic Socialism.

It does indeed.   A market-based economy (rather than a command economy) but based on the people owning and controlling the means of production and distribution.   Not the state, not private aristocracy.

Publicly traded companies represent decentralized ownership; they are not owned by an individual.  The state need not own the means of production; the objective is decentralized ownership.  Socialism isn't about doing away with private property; socialism is about decentralizing the ownership of property.

No, that is social democracy.  Democratic socialism is indeed socialism, not capitalism.  Social democracy is a capitalism-based system that regulates industry to fund government programs to benefit society.

Democratic Socialism is not anti-capitalism.  However, the benefits derived from capitalism are to be broadly shared through decentralized ownership rather than concentrated by monopoly ownership.  

Democratic Socialism is not anti-capitalism.

This is not even debatable Nerm.   Democratic socialism is a theory of socialism and socialism is the polar opposite of capitalism.

However, Democratic Socialism emphasizes the capitalist benefit for society at large rather than individual benefit. 

No, you are confusing Democratic Socialism (the theoretical meta-model) with Social Democracy.   Two entirely different paradigms.

Socialism isn't about doing away with private property; socialism is about decentralizing the ownership of property.

Correct.   Why you wrote this is a mystery, but your comment is correct.   Socialism is all about decentralized control (and ownership) of the productive resources of an economy and administering same via a system based on democracy.

Democratic Socialism is not anti-capitalism.  However, the benefits derived from capitalism are to be broadly shared through decentralized ownership rather than concentrated by monopoly ownership.  

Again, you are confusing Democratic Socialism (the theoretical meta-model) with Social Democracy.   Two entirely different paradigms.

This is not even debatable Nerm.   Democratic socialism is a theory of socialism and socialism is the polar opposite of capitalism.

No, Democratic Socialism is not the polar opposite of capitalism.  Democratic Socialism is capitalism regulated to more broadly distribute profit from productive activity.  Democratic Socialism retains private ownership and retains activities to create wealth (profit) by combining labor and resources.  Democratic Socialism pursues the objective of distributing profit more broadly rather than concentrating profit.

You seem to be confusing Soviet Communism with Democratic Socialism.  Democratic Socialism is not about state ownership on behalf of the population coupled with centralized planning for the economy.  

Correct.   Why you wrote this is a mystery, but your comment is correct.   Socialism is all about decentralized control (and ownership) of the productive resources of an economy and administering same via a system based on democracy.

I wrote that to emphasize that socialism doesn't eliminate private ownership or profit.  Government ownership and centralized planning are not prerequisites for socialism.  Soviet Communism seeks to establish state ownership, centralized planning, and the elimination of profit.

Socialism is not anti-capitalism.  Communism is anti-capitalism.  

Again, you are confusing Democratic Socialism (the theoretical meta-model) with Social Democracy.   Two entirely different paradigms.

Social Democracy is not about economics.

No, Democratic Socialism is not the polar opposite of capitalism.  Democratic Socialism is capitalism regulated to more broadly distribute profit from productive activity. 

You are describing social democracy.

You seem to be confusing Soviet Communism with Democratic Socialism. 

Did you read this article?   Did you not notice that I listed the defining characteristics of the former USSR and those of social democracies?    Then @9.1 did you not read the response I gave to you:

TiG @9.1 ☞  A market-based economy (rather than a command economy) but based on the people owning and controlling the means of production and distribution.   Not the state, not private aristocracy.

Plain as day I noted that Democratic Socialism is NOT a command economy and is based on people owning and controlling rather than an authoritarian state or private aristocracy.   

Democratic Socialism is not about state ownership on behalf of the population coupled with centralized planning for the economy.  

Correct.  Democratic socialism is distributed ownership and control over the productive resources of the economy based on a market economy and democracy.   I have already explained this yet you come back with the bizarre rebuttal to a definition I never offered.   

Did you read this article?   Did you not notice that I listed the defining characteristics of the former USSR and those of social democracies?    Then @9.1 did you not read the response I gave to you:

Then how do you define capitalism?

Private ownership and control over the productive resources of the economy.

Oxford offers this:   

An economic system in which the factors of production are privately owned and individual owners of capital are free to make use of it as they see fit; in particular, for their own profit. In this system the market and the profit mechanism will play a major role in deciding what is to be produced, how it is to be produced, and who owns what is produced. 

Private ownership and control over the productive resources of the economy.

We've already agreed that Democratic Socialism retains the marketplace, private ownership, and profit motivations.  A corporation is decentralized private ownership of the factors of production which, apparently, fits both the definitions of capitalism and Democratic Socialism.

How is Democratic Socialism anti-capitalism when Democratic Socialism retains the functions and features of capitalism?

We've already agreed that Democratic Socialism retains the marketplace, private ownership, and profit motivations. 

No we have not.   We agree that Democratic Socialism retains a market economy (actually this is not technically true because some forms of Democratic Socialism vary from this).  But Democratic Socialism is true socialism and that means there is no private sector or state which owns and controls the productive resources of the economy.    There is no minority control;  the control is distributed control by the people.

How is Democratic Socialism anti-capitalism when Democratic Socialism retains the functions and features of capitalism?

(see above)    Social democracy retains the private sector capitalism;  Democratic Socialism does not.

Again, you are confusing Democratic Socialism (the theoretical meta-model) with Social Democracy.   Two entirely different paradigms.

Indeed.  Fairly decent rundown of these concepts HERE .  Even some good observations about the definition of Capitalism.  World view and political ideology certainly muddy the definitions of all these terms, which is why it is difficult to discuss them without first agreeing on fundamental definitions.

Note:  your article is very good but it, like most, defines 'socialism' as (in effect) 'the system exemplified by the former USSR'.   There is a much deeper technical discussion that should take place on that point, but in this article to keep things simple I have tried to just interpret the word 'socialism' to mean the kind of system exemplified by the former USSR.   (Although I have bitten my tongue half through now.)   Basically the author of your article defines socialism as a command economy, brutal authoritarian rule, etc.

No we have not.   We agree that Democratic Socialism retains a market economy (actually this is not technically true because some forms of Democratic Socialism vary from this).  But Democratic Socialism is true socialism and that means there is no private sector or state which owns and controls the productive resources of the economy.    There is no minority control;  the control is distributed control by the people.

Democratic Socialism advocates decentralized ownership and control of economic institutions and production.  That emphasis on decentralization precludes concentrating ownership and control in the state.  State ownership and central planning is highly concentrated and cannot be decentralized..

Democratic Socialism uses government to regulate the private sector; not to displace or replace the private sector.  Concentrating ownership of property by the state would the the antithesis of Democratic Socialism.  And if state ownership is precluded then there must be a private sector.

Decentralized ownership and control would be like our existing publicly traded corporate structure.  A publicly traded corporation is privately owned but that ownership is decentralized.  Corporate management utilizes a (vestige) of democracy through proxy votes.  While it's true that the system of corporate management has been rigged; the Democratic Socialist argument is that rigging has been made possible through lack of regulation.  Democratic Socialists do not seek to nationalize corporations; Democratic Socialist seek to regulate corporations so that management and control is more democratic.

Social democracy retains the private sector capitalism;  Democratic Socialism does not.

Democratic Socialism must retain the private sector to achieve decentralized ownership and control.

The focus of social democracy is within the consumption side of the economy.  The focus of Democratic Socialism is within the supply side of the economy.

Medicare for All would be consistent with social democracy; particularly by ensuring everyone has access to consume medical care.  The Green New Deal would be consistent with Democratic Socialism; particularly by prioritizing residential solar which would decentralize supply of electricity.

Democratic Socialism advocates decentralized ownership and control of economic institutions and production.  That emphasis on decentralization precludes concentrating ownership and control in the state.  State ownership and central planning is highly concentrated and cannot be decentralized..

Correct.   Democratic socialism is indeed socialism.   It is the opposite of capitalism.   There is no minority control over the productive resources of the economy by a state or by aristocracy.   The control is decentralized and democratic.

Democratic Socialism uses government to regulate the private sector; not to displace or replace the private sector.  

Now you have switched to describing social democracy.   Social democracy ≠ Democratic socialism.

Concentrating ownership of property by the state would the the antithesis of Democratic Socialism.  

Correct!

And if state ownership is precluded then there must be a private sector.

Incorrect.

Decentralized ownership and control would be like our existing publicly traded corporate structure.  A publicly traded corporation is privately owned but that ownership is decentralized. 

Ownership is really not the dominant factor.  The dominant factor is control.  So, no, your analogy does not work.

Corporate management utilizes a (vestige) of democracy through proxy votes. 

Yes.   Certain issues are put up to vote by shareholders.   Not sure why you bring this up.

While it's true that the system of corporate management has been rigged; the Democratic Socialist argument is that rigging has been made possible through lack of regulation. 

The argument is that the control is held by a minority.

Democratic Socialists not seek to nationalize corporations;

Correct.   The idea is distributed control by the people.   The state is not in control.  

Democratic Socialist seek to regulate corporations so that management and control is more democratic.

Sort of.   The idea is to have a system wherein people can democratically control their businesses and the businesses work within an infrastructure where the people (regionally and ultimately nationally) have control over where their productive resources go.   For example, a regional area might vote to allow a recycling business to operate in their area and thus grant resources to the business.   Another, however, might deny allowing renewable energy wind farms.

Democratic Socialism must retain the private sector  ... 

No, that is social democracy.

... to achieve decentralized ownership and control.

Private sector contradicts decentralized ownership and control.   I have no idea what you are thinking here.

The focus of social democracy is within the consumption side of the economy. 

I do not see how you can claim that.

The focus of Democratic Socialism is within the supply side of the economy.

I do not see how you can claim this either.

Medicare for All would be consistent with social democracy; ...

Yes it would.   Quite consistent.

The Green New Deal would be consistent with Democratic Socialism; particularly by prioritizing residential solar which would decentralize supply of electricity.

I do not see why you think this is true.   

Now you have switched to describing social democracy.   Social democracy ≠ Democratic socialism.

Social democracy is also socialism.  Social democracy is a subset of Democratic Socialism; not something separate from Democratic Socialism.  The distinction between Democratic Socialism and Marxist Socialism/Communism is the source of authority.

Marx-Trotsky-Lenin advocated for a totalitarian state with command and control authority to plan the economy.  The source of authority for Marxist Socialism/Communism is the state.  Democratic socialism, as the name implies, exerts authority by democratic means.  The source of authority for Democratic Socialism is decentralized and dispersed throughout the population. 

Democratic Socialism is not Marxist Socialism/Communism.  However, social democracy is Democratic Socialism.  

Sort of.   The idea is to have a system wherein people can democratically control their businesses and the businesses work within an infrastructure where the people (regionally and ultimately nationally) have control over where their productive resources go.   For example, a regional area might vote to allow a recycling business to operate in their area and thus grant resources to the business.   Another, however, might deny allowing renewable energy wind farms.

Democracy is government.  A democratic majority asserts authority over a democratic minority.  A democracy is not classless; majority and minority status are class distinctions.  But a democracy decentralizes governing authority by dispersing that authority across the population.  A democracy is voluntary cooperation among the majority class to use coercive authority against a minority class.

Democratic Socialism derives its authority from what we consider the private sector.  A democratic form of socialism does not establish a governing class with concentrated, centralized authority residing within that governing class.  That is the main distinction between Democratic Socialism and Marxist Socialism/Communism.

I do not see why you think this is true.   

Medicare for All would be consistent with social democracy but social democracy.  Medicare for All addresses ability to access and consume medical care.  Social democracy, as exemplified by Medicare for All, focuses attention on the consumption side of the economy.

The Green New Deal is not consistent with social democracy but is still consistent with Democratic Socialism.  The Green New Deal addresses ability to supply electricity.  

Democratic Socialism pertains to both the supply side of the economy and the consumption side of the economy.  The types of socialism exerting democratic authority over one side of the economy are subsets of Democratic Socialism.

Indeed.  Fairly decent rundown of these concepts HERE .  Even some good observations about the definition of Capitalism.  World view and political ideology certainly muddy the definitions of all these terms, which is why it is difficult to discuss them without first agreeing on fundamental definitions.

The distinction between the types of socialism is the source of authority.  The source of authority for Marxist socialism/communism resides in the state.  The source of authority for democratic socialism is decentralized and dispersed within the population.

Social democracy is also socialism.

Incorrect.  Social democracy is based on a capitalist economy.  It is, by definition, not socialism.

Social democracy is a subset of Democratic Socialism; not something separate from Democratic Socialism. 

Incorrect.   The two are fundamentally different.

The distinction between Democratic Socialism and Marxist Socialism/Communism is the source of authority.

Incorrect.   The source of authority in both cases are the people.   (Don't confuse Marxism with Leninism / Stalinism and the byproducts.)

Marx-Trotsky-Lenin advocated for a totalitarian state with command and control authority to plan the economy. 

Incorrect.  Marx advocates for control by the people; not the state.   Lenin and Trotsky wanted control by the people but realized that was impossible in pre-industrial Russia and went almost immediately to state control.   In doing so they invented Leninism;  something Marx would not have recognized.

The source of authority for Marxist Socialism/Communism is the state. 

Incorrect.   The source of authority is the people.   This is core to the concept.

Democratic socialism, as the name implies, exerts authority by democratic means.  The source of authority for Democratic Socialism is decentralized and dispersed throughout the population. 

Correct!     

Democratic Socialism is not Marxist Socialism/Communism. 

Correct.   It is a contemporary refinement of Marxism.

However, social democracy is Democratic Socialism.  

Incorrect (no matter how many times you make this claim).

But a democracy decentralizes governing authority by dispersing that authority across the population. 

Correct.

A democracy is voluntary cooperation among the majority class to use coercive authority against a minority class.

Incorrect.   There are forms of democracy which mitigate tyranny of the majority.   For example, our system.

Democratic Socialism derives its authority from what we consider the private sector. 

Do you mean 'the people'?

A democratic form of socialism does not establish a governing class with concentrated, centralized authority residing within that governing class. 

Correct.   This is true of socialism (as originally defined) in general.   This is not true of Leninism / Stalinism and byproduct models such as that of Red China, Cuba, etc.

That is the main distinction between Democratic Socialism and Marxist Socialism/Communism.

It is the distinction between socialism and Leninism / Stalinism and all models based upon the soviet model.

Medicare for All would be consistent with social democracy but social democracy. 

?

Medicare for All addresses ability to access and consume medical care.  Social democracy, as exemplified by Medicare for All, focuses attention on the consumption side of the economy.

Repeating your claim is not answering my question.   I was asking you to explain your claim, not repeat it.

The Green New Deal is not consistent with social democracy but is still consistent with Democratic Socialism.  The Green New Deal addresses ability to supply electricity.  

Again, merely repeating your claim does not answer my question.   Nevermind.   I withdraw my inquiry.

Democratic Socialism pertains to both the supply side of the economy and the consumption side of the economy.  The types of socialism exerting democratic authority over one side of the economy are subsets of Democratic Socialism.

I have no idea what these one-sided types of socialism are supposed to be.   Sounds like something you just invented.

The source of authority for Marxist socialism/communism resides in the state. 

Nope, the people.   You conflate Marxism with Leninism / Stalinism and the variants derived from the Soviet model.

The source of authority for democratic socialism is decentralized and dispersed within the population.

Correct.   True with socialism itself (per Marx).   The state, per Marx, is an interim mechanism necessary to bridge the gap from a failed capitalist economy (as Marx envisioned) to a stateless communist economy (again, this is just Marx' vision).

Incorrect.  Social democracy is based on a capitalist economy.  It is, by definition, not socialism.

Social democracy is based on a market economy.  Again, it's necessary to ask what you mean by capitalism?

Your are not demonstrating an understanding of either socialism or capitalism.

Social democracy is based on a market economy. 

Correct.   At least that is how it has been implemented throughout the world.   It is technically possible to have it based on a command economy but until we find a way to make a command economy work well, it would likely not last very long.

Again, it's necessary to ask what you mean by capitalism?

Read what I wrote @9.1.6.  It has not changed.   Read also the Oxford definition I supplied (to corroborate) in the paragraph after.   It has not changed either.

Your are not demonstrating an understanding of either socialism or capitalism.

You just presume you are correct?   Ever consider the possibility that you might not really understand socialism?   Your comments have made that case.

but it, like most, defines 'socialism' as (in effect) 'the system exemplified by the former USSR'

Well the author does qualify that with "...historically speaking...".  The author is from the CSR where they claimed the "S" stood for "Socialist".  A truly Marxist stateless system of "democratic socialism", or even as you and I have discussed in the past "libertarian socialism", has never really lasted or endured historically.  Most examples gave way to being conquered or corrupted by some form of statism eventually.  Some of the worst horrors in human history have happened in countries where the terms "Socialism" or "Socialist" were appropriated by a less than benevolent state, and hence the current confusion and justifiable distrust of anything surrounding the word.  When it comes to folks who have escaped those horrors, you can hardly blame them.

A truly Marxist stateless system of "democratic socialism", or even as you and I have discussed in the past "libertarian socialism", has never really lasted or endured historically. 

Quite true.   They have never existed.   They remain theoretical.   The closest thing that exists is the Mondragon Corporation in Spain which for 50 years has operated as a system of workplace democracy.   That is not socialism, but it is an example of a core feature of most socialist systems working effectively.

Most examples gave way to being conquered or corrupted by some form of statism eventually.  Some of the worst horrors in human history have happened in countries where the terms "Socialism" or "Socialist" were appropriated by a less than benevolent state, and hence the current confusion and justifiable distrust of anything surrounding the word.  When it comes to folks who have escaped those horrors, you can hardly blame them.

I blame people for accepting the euphemistic labels dictators use as a smoke screen.   Lenin called his system 'socialism' (and then died leaving 'socialism' to be further redefined as the nightmare fashioned by Stalin) and from then on most people simply think that the system of the former USSR is the exemplar for socialism.     Thing is, I do not really blame people so much for that because most people go by slogans and do not do their own research.

But when the slogan-level understanding is made clear and people stubbornly, willfully refuse to even investigate and instead blindly stick to the superficial:  socialism = whatever the former USSR did I find it quite difficult to not blame them.  Many actually argue (with no supporting facts) that socialism = the system of the former USSR and subsequent variants on that.   They ignore facts and history to the contrary and simply repeat the mantra.    Willful ignorance is not admirable.

In this article, I largely steered clear of the above.   This article simply made the obvious case that Sanders' proposals are down the middle of the plate social democracy per the Nordic nations and much of Europe and that they are not, in any way, matching the system of the former USSR.

To make it even blatantly obvious, I listed the defining characteristics of the system of the former USSR and those of social democracy.   It takes almost no effort to see how Sanders correlates with social democracy.   And this is what Sanders himself repeatedly states — he constantly tells people that his model is the system of the Nordic nations (which is social democracy).  Yet people actually argue that Sanders is trying to steer the USA towards single-party, brutal authoritarian rule using a command economy, a class system of state vs. everyone else and the elimination of democracy.

Blogging is frustrating bro.  People get ideas or ideologies stuck in their heads and there is no conversation, no rational discourse.  Just a lot of straw-manning and talking right past each other.  Can't even get to the critical thinking part because the walls are up and there is absolutely no desire to consider logic, a decent argument/observation, or another point of view.  Many don't talk with you, they talk to the caricature they've created of you because you dare to challenge even the smallest part of their world view.  Not sure it's worth the time.

Anyhoot... have a great evening my friend.  See you tomorrow.

People get ideas or ideologies stuck in their heads and there is no conversation, no rational discourse. 

Ya think? 

Can't even get to the critical thinking part because the walls are up and there is absolutely no desire to consider logic, a decent argument/observation, or another point of view. 

My biggest complaint about social media sites.   Seems people are the same no matter the site.

Many don't talk with you, they talk to the caricature they've created of you because you dare to challenge even the smallest part of their world view.  

You sound like you have some experience with online forums.   

Anyhoot... have a great evening my friend.  See you tomorrow.

Sounds great Freewill, take care.

Blogging is frustrating bro.  People get ideas or ideologies stuck in their heads and there is no conversation, no rational discourse.  Just a lot of straw-manning and talking right past each other.  Can't even get to the critical thinking part because the walls are up and there is absolutely no desire to consider logic, a decent argument/observation, or another point of view.  Many don't talk with you, they talk to the caricature they've created of you because you dare to challenge even the smallest part of their world view.  Not sure it's worth the time.

There is a difference between a lecture, a debate, and a conversation.  A lecture presents information from some authoritarian point of view that is not to be questioned.  A debate presents an analysis and conclusion that must be defended.  A conversation explores the pros and cons of an issue.  How the blog is structured influences participation.

What is Bernie Sanders?  Is Sanders a communist?  Is Sanders even a socialist?  In this particular instance, the blog presents an analysis and a conclusion.  But the analysis is based upon a smattering of ill defined political talking points rather than presenting any sort of in depth exploration of what communism, socialism, or even capitalism means.  Most political definitions gloss over the fundamentals to create contrasts, distinctions, and ultimately divisions.

Socialism was the first system of economic organization.  Hunting mastodons required socialism.  The Eskimo culture was pure socialism before the 20th century.  So the argument can be made that civilization caused socialism to become untenable.

The Magna Carta of the 13th century was social democracy.  Trade guilds practiced socialism before the 11th century.  Europe was practicing social democracy and democratic socialism before the New World was discovered.

Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky are late comers.  And they engaged in creating political definitions that confined the meaning of socialism to their narrow point of view.  

So, is Bernie Sanders communist, socialist, or something else?  The argument is about how closely Sanders conforms to political definitions that support a narrow point of view.  While the result may provide a politically expedient label for Sanders, we really haven't learned anything.  The pertinent question should be how the proposals offered by Bernie Sanders would address the flaws, imperfections, and weaknesses in civilization that made socialism untenable?

BTW, capitalism doesn't really have anything to do with ownership, private or public.  Publicly owned utilities and services (such as the Postal Service) coexist with privately owned utilities and services.  Is FedEx capitalist while the Postal Service is socialist?  That distinction doesn't seem to pass the smell test.  Using political labels as an expedient to pursue political objectives typically doesn't foster conversation.

... ill defined political talking points ...

I listed the defining characteristics of the former USSR and the defining characteristics of social democracies.   These are easily verified.   The lists are factual, not talking points.   I then asked people to compare Sanders' policies to these.   Sanders' policies are not talking points either.   You can look these up too.   We know what the man is proposing.   So what are you talking about?

Socialism was ...  capitalism ...

You are off talking about history of socialism and the definition of capitalism.   How does that apply to this article? 

I have already engaged you on much of these items even though they are off topic.   

So, now, is it possible that you could read this article and answer the topical question?

I listed the defining characteristics of the former USSR and the defining characteristics of social democracies.   These are easily verified.   The lists are factual, not talking points.   I then asked people to compare Sanders' policies to these.   Sanders' policies are not talking points either.   You can look these up too.   We know what the man is proposing.   So what are you talking about?

As you stated, the former USSR's defining characteristics were:

• Single-party, authoritarian rule
• Party class vs. all others;  riches or rags
• Brutal regime eliminating enemies and forcing compliance by government forces (death, torture, etc.)
• Centrally planned command economy controlling virtually all relevant means of production and distribution
• No liberty, individual life controlled by government
• No democracy

Don't those defining characteristics also apply to political parties in the United States?  The political objectives are the same, the distinctions are only a matter of degree.  Is Bernie Sanders a party politician?

What distinguishes the Democratic Party from the USSR other than degree?  Is Bernie Sanders a Democrat?  Why is that different than being a communist?

You are off talking about history of socialism and the definition of capitalism.   How does that apply to this article? 

I have already engaged you on much of these items even though they are off topic.   

So, now, is it possible that you could read this article and answer the topical question?

The straight answer to the question is that Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and not a Marxist Communist.

Don't those defining characteristics also apply to political parties in the United States?  The political objectives are the same, the distinctions are only a matter of degree.  Is Bernie Sanders a party politician?

How could you possibly view this list as correlating with the positions of either major political party of the USA?:

• Single-party, authoritarian rule
• Party class vs. all others;  riches or rags
• Brutal regime eliminating enemies and forcing compliance by government forces (death, torture, etc.)
• Centrally planned command economy controlling virtually all relevant means of production and distribution
• No liberty, individual life controlled by government
• No democracy

I am flabbergasted by this.   Do not know where to begin to deal with such absurdity.

The straight answer to the question is that Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and not a Marxist Communist.

That is not a straight answer to the question I asked.  But it suggests that if you actually did answer the question [What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?]  directly that you would say that Sanders' policies do NOT correlate with those of the former USSR and do correlate with those of contemporary social democracies.

How could you possibly view this list as correlating with the positions of either major political party of the USA?:

• Single-party, authoritarian rule
• Party class vs. all others;  riches or rags
• Brutal regime eliminating enemies and forcing compliance by government forces (death, torture, etc.)
• Centrally planned command economy controlling virtually all relevant means of production and distribution
• No liberty, individual life controlled by government
• No democracy

I am flabbergasted by this.   Do not know where to begin to deal with such absurdity.

Because those characteristics describe the requirements for achieving political dominance and authority over a population.  A political institution cannot use coercion and force to impose freedom onto a population.  Simply establishing a democratic majority creates limitations and restrictions on freedom and liberty.  The civilizing influence of social organization must impose limitations on freedom.  

A hundred million tyrants are no less authoritarian, brutal, or controlling than a single dictator.  

That is not a straight answer to the question I asked.  But it suggests that if you actually did answer the question [What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?]  directly that you would say that Sanders' policies do NOT correlate with those of the former USSR and do correlate with those of contemporary social democracies.

Correct.  Bernie Sanders' proposals do not correlate with Marxist communism as practiced by the former USSR.  Sanders is not a Marxist socialist.

Because those characteristics describe the requirements for achieving political dominance and authority over a population. 

That does not answer my question:  How could you possibly view this list as correlating with the positions of either major political party of the USA?.

Where are the positions in our major parties that cause you to suggest that this list:

• Single-party, authoritarian rule
• Party class vs. all others;  riches or rags
• Brutal regime eliminating enemies and forcing compliance by government forces (death, torture, etc.)
• Centrally planned command economy controlling virtually all relevant means of production and distribution
• No liberty, individual life controlled by government
• No democracy

... are the defining characteristics for USA political parties?    

Bernie Sanders' proposals do not correlate with Marxist communism as practiced by the former USSR. 

Clearly.

Sanders is not a Marxist socialist.

The former USSR did not implement Marxism.   It implemented Leninism (authoritarian state trying to force industrialization to bring forth capitalism and then to eventually ... in theory ... evolve into Marxist socialism).   Leninism got to the authoritarian rule stage (never a part of Marxism) and then Lenin died.  Stalin took over (enter Stalinism) and ignored the approach of Lenin and instead focused exclusively on authoritarian rule, etc.    The above list defines Stalinism:  the dominant profile of the former USSR.

That does not answer my question:  How could you possibly view this list as correlating with the positions of either major political party of the USA?.

Democrats are currently campaigning to obtain political control over the executive and legislative branches of government which allows obtaining ideological control over the judiciary through appointment.  Democrats are pursuing single-party control of government.  The ideological bias of news organizations and public institutions are apparent.  Democrats in consort with ideologically aligned private institutions are attempting to eliminate ideological dissent through litigation, protests, boycotts, public marginalization, and ostracizing.  Democrats are pursuing a regulatory regime that would control every facet of society; from economics to religious practices.  Democrats are actively engaged in efforts to achieve single-party control of government with an election process that involves a minority of the population that cannot be described as democracy; winning an election with 70 million votes out of a population of over 300 million isn't even close to a majority.  

The Democratic Party really does conform to the listed characteristics of the USSR.

The former USSR did not implement Marxism.   It implemented Leninism (authoritarian state trying to force industrialization to bring forth capitalism and then to eventually ... in theory ... evolve into Marxist socialism).   Leninism got to the authoritarian rule stage (never a part of Marxism) and then Lenin died.  Stalin took over (enter Stalinism) and ignored the approach of Lenin and instead focused exclusively on authoritarian rule, etc.    The above list defines Stalinism:  the dominant profile of the former USSR.

Karl Marx did not advocate for democracy.  Marx advocated for revolt which would naturally eliminate dissent.  Marx's expected democracy would naturally arise through attrition.  The USSR was actually closely following the model of socialism/communism advocated by Karl Marx.  Killing the dissenters would naturally result in an ideological majority whose participation in revolt was democratic.

Democrats are pursuing single-party control of government.

Give me a break.   You posit that the D party wants to change our system to single-party rule as per the USSR??

The Democratic Party really does conform to the listed characteristics of the USSR.

Merely making that claim is known as bullshit.  Back it up.   All you have done is describe normal political dynamics that have been in place since our founding.

Karl Marx did not advocate for democracy. 

Clearly you have not studied this carefully.    What do you think his utopia was?    A stateless, classless society run by the people.

Marx advocated for revolt which would naturally eliminate dissent. 

Yes, he did that too.   His (based on his times) view was that the workers would revolt from over-bearing capitalism.   

Marx's expected democracy would naturally arise through attrition. 

And you translate that into not advocating democracy??

The USSR was actually closely following the model of socialism/communism advocated by Karl Marx. 

The similarity was in the revolution.   That major disconnect was when Lenin imposed authoritarian rule.    

Merely making that claim is known as bullshit.  Back it up.   All you have done is describe normal political dynamics that have been in place since our founding.

What I explained to you is that your listed characteristics for the former USSR describe the normal dynamics of political parties.  Those characteristics have been in place since the beginning of civilization.  Distinctions are only a matter of degree.  But the characteristics describe social organization that is required for civilization.

Clearly you have not studied this carefully.    What do you think his utopia was?    A stateless, classless society run by the people.

Kill all the dissenters and the result would be a Utopian ideological democracy.  But eliminating dissent requires totalitarian ideological authority.

The similarity was in the revolution.   That major disconnect was when Lenin imposed authoritarian rule. 

Karl Marx advocated an ideologically driven revolt that would elevate the ideology to governing authority.  Allowing dissent would undermine the ideology that provides authority.  The ideological basis of the social organization must be authoritarian out of necessity.  Otherwise the ideology would not retain primacy for guiding governance.  The resulting democracy would be confined within bounds of ideology.  

Karl Marx advocated establishing an ideological bubble that required eliminating dissenting viewpoints.  

What I explained to you is that your listed characteristics for the former USSR describe the normal dynamics of political parties.  Those characteristics have been in place since the beginning of civilization.  Distinctions are only a matter of degree.  But the characteristics describe social organization that is required for civilization.

You are trying to claim that a political party operating within a federated constitutional Republic based on representative democracy, a two-party system running on a capitalist economy is just a matter of degree from a brutal authoritarian regime that removes liberty and democracy, runs through single-party rule that oppresses the people and based on a centralized command economy.

That, Nerm, is beyond absurd.   With that logic you could argue that a fish and a human being are the same other than simply a matter of degree in evolution.

Kill all the dissenters and the result would be a Utopian ideological democracy. 

That is not what he proposed;  not even close.

 It implemented Leninism (authoritarian state trying to force industrialization to bring forth capitalism and then to eventually ... in theory ... evolve into Marxist socialism).

This is the part that really confuses people (like me) about historical attempts to bring about Marxist socialism, usually via some type of "revolution".  Indeed Lenin's New Economic Plan involved state control of the economy but also allowed a significant level of private enterprise (capitalism) to encourage farmers and workers via profit motive to rev up industrialization.  So they acknowledged that capitalism was needed to build a strong economy and feed the people, yet the plan after that was to throw away capitalism and magically get the same results under a Marxist utopia of anti-capitalism?  What were they smoking?  Is it any wonder that they never got past the authoritarian state, centrally planned command economy stage?  

I think it comes down to human nature.  Humans are natural pack animals like many other species on this planet.  As such, the theory of dominance hierarchy is ever present in our nature. Whether that dominance is based on physical strength or on competence (level of skill) is just a matter of our advancement as a species.  Some will have the skills and desire to lead/build, and others to follow and contribute their skills. But as humans we are all individually capable of recognizing and acting on our potential to lead/build and contribute to society in a positive way.  All of us can be better at certain things than others and the competition coupled with the diversity of our individual skills can lead to the best solutions for the overall society if we work together and are properly motivated to do so.

Part of working together efficiently though also requires leadership which leads to politics, which leads to some form of state or government especially if that community or society expects to compete and coexist with other communities and societies that may not be "stateless".  Not unlike like the pecking order and competition to survive among any other packs of animals.  So a truly stateless Marxist or socialist society seems to me to be outside the capability or at least the wheelhouse of our nature. 

Hence, the development of forms of government and economic systems that best recognize the importance of individual liberty and the realization of individual potential, and an economic frame work that maximizes that liberty and provides motivation for cooperation, and best meet the needs of both the individual and society as a whole.  I'm rather fond of the small government Republican Democracy and free market Capitalism ideas, from the standpoint of recognizing human nature and making the best of it that we can.  So I am therefore suspicious of systems that don't recognize human nature, or policies/actions that corrupt or destroy the systems I'm fond of. 

Social Democracy works up to a certain point, until it leaves Republican Democracy and Capitalism in shambles. Both parties have destroyed our systems via crony capitalism, enlarging the central government and burying us so far in debt that we can't recover without a catastrophic reset.  But enlarging that bureaucracy even further and nationalizing industries as Bernie has talked about can only accelerate that process and ensure the demise of those systems.  Certainly the evidence is in the exponential rise in the debt over the last couple of decades.  It is a snow ball that will eventually hit a wall and explode.

This is the part that really confuses people (like me) about historical attempts to bring about Marxist socialism, usually via some type of "revolution".  Indeed Lenin's New Economic Plan involved state control of the economy but also allowed a significant level of private enterprise (capitalism) to encourage farmers and workers via profit motive to rev up industrialization. 

Best to look at this over a time scale.   Lenin (and Trotsky) were wide-eyed leftists when they first stumbled onto the opportunity to exploit revolution in Russia to try to realize their original Marxist views.    I think they truly believed they could transform pre-industrial Russia into a communist utopia (ala Marx).   Thing is, Marx defined communism as a distant end state.   He proposed socialism as an interim form.   And, importantly, that interim from was from a mature capitalist industrial base that had grown so powerful and the class distinctions so profound that it collapsed under its own weight.

Well, Russia was pre-industrial so Marx' position was tossed out the window and Lenin rolled his own.   His approach (Leninism) was to create Soviets (uber unions) where the workers would democratically control things.   That quickly failed and Lenin (to hold on to power) resorted to authoritarian, military rule.   He eventually figured out that Marx was right and that he had to first build Russia into an industrial nation via capitalism.   He was starting to do that when he died.   Stalin took over, tossed out the idealistic views of Lenin and focused instead on building Russia into an industrial war machine (killing millions in the process).

So they acknowledged that capitalism was needed to build a strong economy and feed the people, yet the plan after that was to throw away capitalism and magically get the same results under a Marxist utopia of anti-capitalism?  What were they smoking?  Is it any wonder that they never got past the authoritarian state, centrally planned command economy stage?  

(see above)    Lenin did not live long enough.   He realized what to do but then died.  Stalin was not with Lenin's program.  Stalin wanted power and a war machine.  He got it.

I think it comes down to human nature.  Humans are natural pack animals like many other species on this planet.  As such, the theory of dominance hierarchy is ever present in our nature. Whether that dominance is based on physical strength or on competence (level of skill) is just a matter of our advancement as a species.  Some will have the skills and desire to lead/build, and others to follow and contribute their skills. But as humans we are all individually capable of recognizing and acting on our potential to lead/build and contribute to society in a positive way.  All of us can be better at certain things than others and the competition coupled with the diversity of our individual skills can lead to the best solutions for the overall society if we work together and are properly motivated to do so.

Agreed.

Part of working together efficiently though also requires leadership which leads to politics, which leads to some form of state or government especially if that community or society expects to compete and coexist with other communities and societies that may not be "stateless".  Not unlike like the pecking order and competition to survive among any other packs of animals.  So a truly stateless Marxist or socialist society seems to me to be outside the capability or at least the wheelhouse of our nature. 

Without a doubt.   If this were ever to occur it will be the result of societal evolution at a generational pace.   

Hence, the development of forms of government and economic systems that best recognize the importance of individual liberty and the realization of individual potential, and an economic frame work that maximizes that liberty and provides motivation for cooperation, and best meet the needs of both the individual and society as a whole.  I'm rather fond of the small government Republican Democracy and free market Capitalism ideas, from the standpoint of recognizing human nature and making the best of it that we can.  So I am therefore suspicious of systems that don't recognize human nature, or policies/actions that corrupt or destroy the systems I'm fond of. 

I fully agree.

Social Democracy works up to a certain point, until it leaves Republican Democracy and Capitalism in shambles. Both parties have destroyed our systems via crony capitalism, enlarging the central government and burying us so far in debt that we can't recover without a catastrophic reset.  But enlarging that bureaucracy even further and nationalizing industries as Bernie has talked about can only accelerate that process and ensure the demise of those systems.  Certainly the evidence is in the exponential rise in the debt over the last couple of decades.  It is a snow ball that will eventually hit a wall and explode.

All nations have some level of social democracy.   We do too.   The key, as you imply, is fiscal responsibility.   That concept seems to be long lost in the USA.

I realize this line of discussion is not quite on topic but I just ran across a fascinating paper from the late 1980's discussing the re-introduction of "private enterprise" in the USSR and in Communist China.   Really interesting historical perspective, and much of it driven by Mikhail Gorbachev who was the general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union at the time.  It is most interesting to read the list of positive benefits that the Soviets wished to gain from reintroducing private enterprise that really hadn't shown it's face since the New Economic Reform of Lenin in the 1920's, 60 years prior. 

The following are the chief positive effects politicians
and academics in the Soviet Union expect to result from
an expansion in private economic activity:

[] an increase in the quantity and variety of consumer
goods and services available to the population ,

[] more effective control over the substantial amount of
activity in the black economy , or the return to legality of
such activity,

[] gaining access to pensioners, housewives and
students as a source of labour,

[] an increase in the official registration of after-hours
working,

[] the creation of jobs for labour shed as a result of
rationalization measures in state enterprises,

[] increases in productivity and output of the state
enterprises in response to competitive pressure from
the private sector ,

[] an increase in government income from taxes and
levies paid by private individuals. 

The first one really gets me.  If the leaders and academics in the USSR, even since the time of Lenin, thought that private enterprise based on the concept of Capitalism could provide better quantity, quality, and variety of products to their people, then why were they fucking around with communism in the first place? 

Note the reference in the second bullet point to the substantial "black economy".  Another by-product of a centrally planned command economy, or any economy that denies the power of individual choice in a consumer market driven economy. It was like Prohibition on steroids for decades!

And the sixth bullet point - A testament to the advantages of capitalism and market competition over a centrally planned economy, and dare I say over even the nationalization of certain industries in a Social Democracy when it comes to productivity and output.

Two and a half years after this article was published the USSR was done and Gorbachev stepped down.  

The first one really gets me.  If the leaders and academics in the USSR, even since the time of Lenin, thought that private enterprise based on the concept of Capitalism could provide better quantity, quality, and variety of products to their people, then why were they fucking around with communism in the first place? 

Lenin, a few years before his death, realized that he had to introduce capitalism to build an industrial society.   Trouble is, he died and Stalin took over.  Stalin did not get the memo (or burned it).

It was like Prohibition on steroids for decades!

Yup

And the sixth bullet point - A testament to the advantages of capitalism and market competition over a centrally planned economy, and dare I say over even the nationalization of certain industries in a Social Democracy when it comes to productivity and output.

The former USSR was well aware that they could not pull off a command economy.    The people were starving, bread lines circled the block, etc.   Back in the late 80s a corporate change management consultant told me of a time when he was entertaining dignitaries from the former USSR.   They had asked to see a USA grocery store.   He noted that they were flabbergasted to see not only the size of the store but the fact that all the shelves were fully stocked.   They also could not fathom the variety we have.

Lenin, a few years before his death, realized that he had to introduce capitalism to build an industrial society.   Trouble is, he died and Stalin took over.  Stalin did not get the memo (or burned it).

And nobody in the country thought about it again for 60 years until Gorbachev?  With the US and Europe absolutely booming both before (well aside from the Depression) and especially after WW2?  Hard to imagine.

Stalin was an authoritarian dictator from 1924 to 1953 (his death).

Stalin was focused on building an industrial society but he did it through the blood of the Soviet people.   Why his replacements did not act is a mystery.   But with almost 30 years of conditioning and a system that has never known any difference, I would imagine it was a hard sell   Also, remember that capitalism was as bad of word to them as communism was to the West.   Trying to argue a move to Western approaches would not go well and none of the leaders were as powerful as Stalin so none of them likely had the political clout to even attempt such a change.

The system finally changed but only after it had no choice due to complete failure.

My hypothesis.

By the way, I was in Russia last September.   Lenin is held as a hero.   Stalin, not so much.   They have Lenin's body in an open crypt where they have maintained his corpse since his death 96 years ago (almost none are original parts but he looks pretty good).   Stalin's tomb is stuck away in a corner.   

That is a good indication that the Russian people did not approve of the direction Stalin took their nation.   But changing the course of that huge ship was apparently an impossible task.

If the leaders and academics in the USSR, even since the time of Lenin, thought that private enterprise based on the concept of Capitalism could provide better quantity, quality, and variety of products to their people, then why were they fucking around with communism in the first place?

Because (and this is not scholarship, it's just me talking out of my ass, aka my lay opinion) settling on communism - for most countries - is not the result of some carefully reasoned economic analysis. Most countries that fall to communism suffer from a lack of justice, generally. Their leaders are both wealthy and corrupt, at the expense of the people.

Communism is not the cure for that. Justice is. Confiscating people's farms or homes and turning them over to someone else doesn't solve anything. Shifting money and property around doesn't eliminate a culture of corruption. Russia, in particular has had a culture of corruption through multiple governments going back to the tzars.

Bernie has long fetishized the idea of the poor rising up against the rich. I linked to a video (elsewhere in this seed) of him citing that as the main reason he was so excited about the Castro revolution. It's a common prejudice. We hear about the "evil rich" all the time and often the only justification for calling them evil is the simple fact of their wealth.

Bernie claims our big banks are bad for the economy just because they control so much wealth. He wants to break them up on the grounds that they're too big. Don't be confused about this. He also talks about anti-trust. That is a separate issue.

It looks like he has taken the idea of "too big to fail" to mean that big banks are inherently bad for the economy, arguing that if they fail it is necessarily devastating to the larger economy. But there are other paths to safeguarding the economy that don't involve confiscating and breaking up a successful business. He also claims,

The enormous concentration of ownership within the financial sector is hurting the middle class and damaging the economy by limiting choices and raising prices for consumers and small businesses.

But he doesn't say how. His antagonistic policy to the banks is both simplistic and radical, while not actually addressing genuine economic problems. Kinda like communist revolutions usually are.

I would like to point out that what you have described are positions that fly in the face of 'communism' per the former USSR.

The former USSR centralized everything under (brutal) authoritarian rule.   This included all relevant industry and even the production and distribution of food.   To be 'communist' in this fashion is to seek a single-party state ruthlessly controlling everything and oppressing / exploiting the population.

While in Russia on vacation I spoke with an approximately 65 year old former teacher who described how life used to be under the former USSR.   She had lived in a community housing structure.   The units had no bathrooms; bathrooms were communal.   The state imposed a schedule broken down into 15 minute intervals.   That was your allotted time to use the bathroom.   Better be ready because under penalty of law you had to comply. 

Sanders does seem to fancy himself the 'every-man's hero' — the leader of the revolution (light) to free the serfs, etc.  'I am as mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore'.  He is, in this sense, entirely anti-communist.   He does not want a powerful state run by aristocracy oppressing the lower class.   He wants the people as a whole to benefit from the riches of a nation and to have liberty.   He is, in short, pro-people, not pro-authoritarian-dominating-state.

So let's now turn to your point on banks.   I am not going to again address each point but rather make this summary comment.   A 'communist' per the former USSR would not seek to break up banks, would not seek competition, would not seek accountability, etc.   Rather a 'communist' would favor a single national bank owned and operated (along with all other major industries) by the state.   Sanders' position is the polar opposite.   I have yet to observe him seek a nation state which owns and controls all the major industries.   He explicitly declares his support for the opposite.

Sanders' proposals, for the most part, strike me as impractical.   At least not something that will take place in the present and certainly not by edict.   Importantly, they also do not correlate with those of a 'communist' per the former USSR.   Sanders would be kicked out of the party.

Heavy regulation / taxation of capitalism

Capitalism doesn't thrive under heavy taxation. That's why anybody who lives in highly socialised countries complain about how expensive it is to live there. Much similar to American large cities that also have very generous social programs. 

Higher taxes on high-income individuals

This is not Bernies position. He will tax even the middle class and he has been very open about that. His goal, like most communists, it to eventually have you live solely off the government. I really just see the means to be much different. No one will stand by and let an authoritarian communist government take over America. We have second amendment rights here after all for that very reason. Instead he will tax every American to death till they have no choice but to give what the government gives them. Just different approaches to the same end

Capitalism doesn't thrive under heavy taxation.

Agreed.   But does Sanders' position here correspond with 'communism' per the former USSR or social democracy such as with the Nordic nations and much of Europe proper?

This is not Bernies position. He will tax even the middle class and he has been very open about that.

It is indeed his position.   He will wind up taxing the middle class of course, but his stated position is to go after the wealthy.    And, again, does his position on increased taxation mean that he is a 'communist' per the former USSR?

I guess the only difference people see between communism and socialism, is that the government doesn't pretend to give you a chance in communism, where socialism they do, they just setup the system so you have to GIVE them your money instead of TAKING it. If you don't GIVE your money, then they take it by force and blame it on you for not obeying the law. Again, the end result is the same for socialism and communism. The government takes most or all of your money, and provides you their definition of what you deserve.

I guess the only difference people see between communism and socialism, ...

There are fundamental differences between 'communism' per the former USSR and social democracy (not socialism) per the Nordic nations that Sanders is promoting.   The systems are profoundly different in both structure and results.    Compare the defining criteria presented in the article:

The former USSR's defining characteristics were:

• Single-party, authoritarian rule
• Party class vs. all others;  riches or rags
• Brutal regime eliminating enemies and forcing compliance by government forces (death, torture, etc.)
• Centrally planned command economy controlling virtually all relevant means of production and distribution
• No liberty, individual life controlled by government
• No democracy

The defining characteristics of social democracy are:

• An economic system of capitalism
• Heavy regulation / taxation of capitalism
• Tax-based funding of large-scale public programs controlled by a large 'benevolent' government
• Aggressive taxation on prosperity;  but higher taxes on everyone nonetheless
• Democratic system (typically indirect / representative democracy such as in the USA)

*sigh. Obviously you have setup this seed so that no one can say Bernie IS espousing communism. Let's be clear, it's only because he knows he could never win doing that. Because this is America and we have spent blood and treasure fighting Communists all around the world. What he is campaigning on is a major step away from the traditional capitalist America in favor of a direction that leads towards communism. Obviously people are using hyperbole when they say he is a communist but it's only because they know he would be one if he could be one. I mean the guy said from his own mouth that its a "good thing" when people are standing in bread lines! My god man!

Again, the end result is the same for socialism and communism.

I don't think modern Norway, or Sweden, in any way compares to the old communist USSR.

Obviously you have setup this seed so that no one can say Bernie IS espousing communism.

No, I wrote this article to factually and logically argue that Sanders' proposals are those of social democracy and not communism per the former USSR.

Let's be clear, it's only because he knows he could never win doing that.

He cannot win with his current proposals.   I do not presume to be able to read the guy's mind.   Nobody can do that.

What he is campaigning on is a major step away from the traditional capitalist America in favor of a direction that leads towards communism.

Don't just make that claim; demonstrate it.   Look at what he is proposing.   Demonstrate that his proposals lead towards 'communism' rather than social democracy.   I cannot imagine how anyone looking at the facts could conclude that Sanders' is proposing 'communism' rather than social democracy.

Is it your opinion that social democracies of the world are on a path to 'communism' per the former USSR??    If so, why?

Obviously people are using hyperbole when they say he is a communist but it's only because they know he would be one if he could be one. I mean the guy said from his own mouth that its a "good thing" when people are standing in bread lines! My god man!

This article is all about encouraging people to cast aside innuendo, slogans, etc. and look at the hard facts.   

this is America and we have spent blood and treasure fighting Communists all around the world. What he is campaigning on is a major step away from the traditional capitalist America in favor of a direction that leads towards communism.

One can say the same of Trump and Fascism. I believe the point of the article is to remove the hyperbole and actually point to examples, but there is none.

Obviously people are using hyperbole when they say he is a communist but it's only because they know he would be one if he could be one. I mean the guy said from his own mouth that its a "good thing" when people are standing in bread lines! My god man!

A slippery slope argument backed up by feeling and not logic.

The examples are all over the world. China being one of the largest. They went from a heavily socialized country to a communist one. Mostly homogeneous white countries are the only successful countries you can point to that HAVEN'T led to communism. Even they are under threat now that they have kicked their doors open to unchecked mass immigration. We will see how well they last. There is already a major swing towards the right wing as a result of it.

They went from a heavily socialized country to a communist one

What??   China was an Imperial Dynasty which ended in 1912 when it became a parliamentary Republic.   A little more than a decade later after dealing with constant intranational turmoil, they adopted the soviet model and went full bore authoritarian dictatorship.

They never had a social democracy (assuming that this is what you meant by 'socialized').

The examples are all over the world. China being one of the largest.

China was never a democratic socialist country. Ever.

Mostly homogeneous white countries are the only successful countries you can point to that HAVEN'T led to communism.

Homogeneous white whateverism aside you just pointed out that most of democratic socialist countries in history haven't led to communism. Awesome job. 

Even they are under threat now that they have kicked their doors open to unchecked mass immigration. We will see how well they last. There is already a major swing towards the right wing as a result of it.

They are under threat of fascism not communism. As per my post in 10.1.6 I could make the same hyperbolic slippery slope argument about the current state of the US and we aren't a democratic socialist country.

They never had a social democracy...

I swear if people ever used language properly (and an ounce of common sense)  we'd have less to argue about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang

That is the party that lost the civil war to the communists

One of the Three Principles of the People of KMT, Mínshēng, was defined as socialism by Dr. Sun Yat-sen. He defined this principle of saying in his last days "its socialism and its communism". The concept may be understood as social welfare as well. Sun understood it as an industrial economy and equality of land holdings for the Chinese peasant farmers. Here he was influenced by the American thinker Henry George (see Georgism) and German thinker Karl Marx; the land value tax in Taiwan is a legacy thereof. He divided livelihood into four areas: food, clothing, housing, and transportation; and planned out how an ideal (Chinese) government can take care of these for its people.^{[citation needed]}

China being one of the largest. They went from a heavily socialized country to a communist one.

Where the heck did you learn history???

China was a feudal farming society ruled by various dynasties for 4100 years until 1912 when it became a republic which was interrupted by the Japanese invasion during WWII when they (the Chinese)  were America's ally.  Post WWII a civil war resumed which the communists won. Mao continues the Republican industrialization but it takes multiple generations after the failed ideologies of the 1940's and 1950's until 1984 when the government began relaxing it's grip on businesses in favor of capitalism and entrepreneurship.

The true problem with today's China is that is one party rule.

( Tell me about it. )

One of the Three Principles of the People of KMT, Mínshēng, was defined as socialism by Dr. Sun Yat-sen.

The USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.    I told you @10.1.8

TiG @10.1.8 ☞  A little more than a decade later after dealing with constant intranational turmoil, they adopted the soviet model and went full bore authoritarian dictatorship.

Merely labeling something as 'socialism' means nothing.

China, in 1912 after revolting from Imperial rule, was heavily influenced by what had been taking place in Russia and were moving towards a similar system.   In the former USSR there never was a Marxist socialism, nor was there ever Democratic Socialism (it was not defined until after the USSR was formed and has never existed anywhere on the planet) and finally there was no capitalism in Russia or China so it was impossible for them to have Social Democracy.

People can label anything they wish any way they wish.   And the do, all the time!   The fact that someone labels something 'socialism' is almost meaningless.   What matters is the actual mechanics.   And in terms of actual mechanics, without an industrial base and a capitalistic economic engine, social democracy cannot exist.   China never had social democracy.

Bernie is not a "Socialist", nor is he a "Communist" !

He's just a typical life long "Uber Playa" politician that has no other real accomplishment under his belt !

He's like the little "Creature" that pops up in the "Whac-A-Mole" game.

As long as Bernie has been in politics, ya woulda thought he coulda "Fixed" something" by now.

Instead, he's just willing to pop his head out now and again, promising "Sugar and Spice and EVERYTHING super nice", knowing his head is never gonna get hit. That game is a money maker for him for sure. 

Even the Dems running for President have a massive hard time saying anything against the "Bern". It might upset the "Kids" of today. 

His best line of the debates has been, "That's not True".....the "Kid Crowd ROARS" in delight.

What's not "True" ……. Bernie ?

Bernie might or might not be a communist, but his comments on 60 Minutes the other night are cause for concern. 

“When Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program,” he told journalist Anderson Cooper during the interview. “Is that a bad thing, even though Fidel Castro did it?”

That's right up there with pointing out that fascists made the trains run on time. 

It's lovely that 99% of Cubans can read. What's not lovely is that the government told them what to read, prohibited them from reading anything they don't approve of, and required them to promote government propaganda.

The fact that Bernie is emphasizing the bright side of oppression, while ignoring the destruction of liberty and the advancement of indoctrination is a problem. Stuff like this is why people are afraid of him.

Bernie might or might not be a communist, but his comments on 60 Minutes the other night are cause for concern. 

I watched that too.   Sanders purposely made the point in that interview that he is not going to shy away from supporting systems / policies that he finds to be good simply because a dictator also had those policies.    You even supplied a good quote.   Sanders is saying that Castro's literacy program was a good thing and that he is not going to find it to be a bad idea just because Castro implemented it.

That's right up there with pointing out that fascists made the trains run on time. 

But you just ignored what the man said.   He was not saying that Cuban communism was good;  he said that some of Castros policies were good.   Similarly, he might state that efficient/timely trains is a good thing and not dismiss that idea simply because it was the Nazis who implemented a system to make trains more efficient.

It's lovely that 99% of Cubans can read. What's not lovely is that the government told them what to read, prohibited them from reading anything they don't approve of, and required them to promote government propaganda.

Of course.   Now, honestly, do you think Sanders would disagree with you??

The fact that Bernie is emphasizing the bright side of oppression, while ignoring the destruction of liberty and the advancement of indoctrination is a problem. Stuff like this is why people are afraid of him.

Now that is just confirmation bias in action.    You have framed this as Sanders giving his analysis of Cuba.   That is not what he did, he was explaining to people that there are good policies even in bad systems and we should not just dismiss something simply because a dictator implemented it.   

Maybe it would be best to wait until Sanders supports authoritarian rule over our federated Republic based on representative democracy before presuming he thinks such a system is good.

As an aside, this is a fine example of why I have stated that Sanders cannot win in the general.   People will dismiss / distort / recast / ignore what he says and presume his positions.   He is not going to be able to shake off all the negatives tied to the label 'socialism'.   Not in the USA, not today.

he said that some of Castros policies were good

To what point? You can promote literacy (and many many people do) without being Fidel Castro or some other communist. There are thousands (probably) of literacy programs you could hold up as worthy of praise or emulation. He chose the one designed to advance totalitarian government propaganda. 

Of course.   Now, honestly, do you think Sanders would disagree with you??

He shouldn't need to wait for me to point it out so that he can then disagree with it. He should just be promoting Reading Rainbow or RIF or Sesame Street or something all on his own. Why go to Castro? I have to assume it's because he wants me to be open to other ideas that Castro had. That's a little scary.

he was explaining to people that there are good policies even in bad systems

That makes it sound like that system invented the idea. It didn't. Communism didn't invent the idea of literacy any more than fascism invented the idea of reliable public transportation. Again: cite a different source - ESPECIALLY if you know people fear voting for you because they think you're a communist.

Maybe it would be best to wait until Sanders supports authoritarian rule

Unfortunately, he just did. The literacy program was mandatory. Our government provides opportunities to learn how to read. It doesn't require literacy as a matter of law, and it when it teaches a person to read, it doesn't force them to read government propaganda, and require them to spread that propaganda. The literacy program he is championing did exactly that. Once you learned how to read and write in Cuba, do you think you would be allowed to write and disseminate articles that were critical of the government? 

How Education Shaped Communist Cuba

Under Fidel Castro, education became universal—but he also stipulated that anyone who received this education would have to actively promote government policies both during and after their schooling. They would also be required to take government-approved courses that didn’t tolerate any criticism of socialism as a way of life. In other words, education was seen as key to the revolution taking hold and creating a literate population loyal to the government.

The Cuban literacy program was literally designed to promote authoritarian rule. And Bernie Sanders thinks that's great. He used to be a lot more outspoken in support of communist states like Cuba and Russia than he has been lately. I think people were hoping he has outgrown that kind of thing - maybe come to see the error of his ways. The 60 minutes interview is going to do a lot to kill that hope.

To what point? You can promote literacy (and many many people do) without being Fidel Castro or some other communist. There are thousands (probably) of literacy programs you could hold up as worthy of praise or emulation. He chose the one designed to advance totalitarian government propaganda. 

He was explaining that people misrepresent his positions by translating his approval of select policies of dictators such as Casto to mean support for Casto (and his system) as a whole.

Why go to Castro?

It was an example Tacos!    Look :

SANDERS: We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but you know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad . You know? When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?

He states opposition to the authoritarian rule of Cuba as a prelude to noting that even in spite of that system, there were some things in it that he considers to be good.   He points out that literacy, in and of itself, is good.    He also points out again that just because it came from Castro does not mean it is necessarily bad.

How could he have been any clearer?

That makes it sound like that system invented the idea.

What?   Makes it sound?   He stated that literacy itself is good in spite of the fact that Cuba was under authoritarian rule.

Unfortunately, he just did. The literacy program was mandatory. 

???    So you somehow think that Sanders' support for literacy in Cuba means he supports authoritarian rule because it was mandated by Castro??   Do you really think that you are making any attempt to objectively interpret what this guy said?   

The Cuban literacy program was literally designed to  promote  authoritarian rule. 

Again, Sanders simply said that literacy is good.   And literacy obviously is good.   That is all that he said was good.   His whole point is that people do what you are doing here.   Per your logic, no matter what Sanders found to be good in the Cuban system you would claim that it still is part of the system and thus has nefarious intent and thus Sanders supports the Cuban system in total.   Good grief man.

Fascinating.    This really is a perfect example of confirmation bias Tacos!    I am very surprised you do not recognize it.   Actually I am surprised you even wrote your comment.

Tacos, if I may jump into this discussion. 

Not to side with Tig, but I'd like to explain why Bernie didn't pick some other nation as an example and please keep in mind, I don't like Bernie. 

He was making a point about Castro's literacy policy helped the people. There is no European comparison since all of Europe that have socialist policies also had literacy. In that sense, Casto's policy was the only example and was good, even if Castro wasn't.  

In short, Sanders' was making the point that we should not ignore a policy or program just because it was implemented in an authoritarian regime.   It was simply a do not throw out the baby with the bathwater example.

Sanders is saying that Castro's literacy program was a good thing and that he is not going to find it to be a bad idea just because Castro implemented it

Indeed.  Certainly it is possible for people to find agreement with at least some of the policies put in place under the Trump Administration even though they know that Trump can be a real ass-hat at times.  Funny how some folks can accept that possibility/reality in some cases, but then not in others. 

Agreed.   We need to be careful and fair.   While I am not a Sanders supporter, I think it is important to try to understand what the man is saying.   He explicitly states his opposition to authoritarian rule and then simply notes that a literacy program is a good thing.   

You still haven't answered the question of why it's necessary to point to Castro instead of PBS. Why is he trying to get people to approve of anything Castro did? If I pointed out something Hitler did that was successful, wouldn't you want to know why I picked Hitler of all people? I would hope so.

He states opposition to the authoritarian rule of Cuba as a prelude to noting that even in spite of that system, there were some things in it that he considers to be good.

I have already explained that the Cuban literacy program was not a good thing. Forcing people to read so that you can then compel them to read your authoritarian propaganda and regurgitate it, and then criminalizing anything that opposes the government it is not "good." 

Fascinating . . . I am very surprised you do not recognize it.

Don't try to analyze me. You're not qualified, and its condescending as hell.

This really is a perfect example of confirmation bias Tacos! 

No, it's not. I suggested in another comment that it was possible he's simply a tax and spend liberal, so you aren't justified in making assumptions that question the integrity of my analysis. However, his comments on 60 Minutes are forcing me to reconsider that generous appraisal. That means my mind is open to analyzing new facts, which is what I am doing here.

no matter what Sanders found to be good in the Cuban system

Why should anyone seek to - or care about - finding something good in the Cuban system unless the goal is to make America more like Cuba? Why go out of your way to even talk about Cuba?

He was making a point about Castro's literacy policy helped the people.

Helped them how? In America, the ability to read gives me access to diverse - even subversive - ideas. Did it do that for the Cuban people? Or did it teach them Fidel Castro was a hero of the people and no one should challenge him?

I urge you and TiG, and anyone else to read the piece below and come back and tell us how Castro's literacy program was "a good thing" that "helped the people."

I went to school in Cuba under Castro. Here’s what it’s like, Bernie Sanders

Dude! Sanders said literacy was good. Full stop. Stop getting hung up on the how - the how has no bearing on point Sanders was making. 

You still haven't answered the question of why it's necessary to point to Castro instead of PBS.

It is not necessary, that is just the example he used.   

I have already explained that the Cuban literacy program was not a good thing. Forcing people to read so that you can then compel them to read your authoritarian propaganda and regurgitate it, and then criminalizing anything that opposes the government it is not "good." 

I read your comment and responded.   Sanders said that it is good for the people of a nation to be literate.   He did not say that a literacy program simply to communicate propaganda was good.    You keep putting words into his mouth when he upfront stated he is against Cuban authoritarian rule.

Don't try to analyze me. You're not qualified, and its condescending as hell.

I am out of patience with you taking every opportunity to amplify what I write into some huge negative.  It is obviously a tactic that you have chosen to use and I am now going to call you out on it every time you use it.   If you cannot engage me like an adult without pretending offense, etc. then do not engage me.   

No, it's not. 

That is exactly what it is.   You flat out ignored his upfront statement that he is against Cuban authoritarian rule and then put words in his mouth claiming that he actually is in support of Castro's system.  

I suggested in another comment that it was possible he's simply a tax and spend liberal, so you aren't justified in making assumptions that question the integrity of my analysis.

I am responding to what you have been writing.   I am most definitely qualified to point out the flaws in what you just wrote.   Especially when it is so obvious.

However, his comments on 60 Minutes are forcing me to reconsider that generous appraisal. That means my mind is open to analyzing new facts, which is what I am doing here.

Are you trying to make a joke now?

Why should anyone seek to - or care about - finding something good in the Cuban system unless the goal is to make America more like Cuba? Why go out of your way to even talk about Cuba?

I have explained this to you multiple times and yet you ask this question?    Sanders was making the point that people accuse him of supporting bad systems simply because he finds some things in bad systems that are good.   Cuban literacy was his example.   He stated that literacy is a good thing — that it is good for the people of a nation to be literate.   He said that authoritarian rule is bad but literacy is good.   He made no comment about literacy to enable propaganda.   Do you honestly think Sanders is against authoritarian rule but supports literacy for the purpose of pushing authoritarian propaganda?   Really?   Give me a break. 

Look at your language.   You clearly presume the worst and are cherry-picking (and inserting words that are not there) to confirm your bias.   Again, I am amazed that you cannot recognize this.

Is this not amazing?   Good friggin' grief.

Dude! Sanders said literacy was good. Full stop.

No, it's not "full stop." I could talk about the virtues of literacy for hours and never once mention Fidel Castro or Cuba. What is the purpose of including them in the conversation?

I am now going to call you out on it every time you use it.   If you cannot engage me like an adult without pretending offense, etc.

That's the second time you have attacked my integrity. Every time you do it I am going to call you out on it. You can avoid that by discussing the topic instead of trying to accuse me of arguing dishonestly.

You flat out ignored his upfront statement that he is against Cuban authoritarian rule

Not at all. It creates cognitive dissonance that must be resolved. He claims he is against authoritarian rule and then goes out of his way to celebrate a program designed to reinforce authoritarian rule. I conclude he either doesn't understand what he is talking about or he is ok with it.

I am responding to what you have been writing.   I am most definitely qualified to point out the flaws in what you just wrote.   Especially when it is so obvious.

If you find a flaw, you can discuss it. That's not what you did. You assumed bias in me that does not exist and you are not open to the idea that I can speak for myself on that topic. You presume to judge me.

Are you trying to make a joke now?

More condescension and personal attack. 

Cease with the slimy tactics and focus on the content.   

Not at all. It creates cognitive dissonance that must be resolved. He claims he is against authoritarian rule and then goes out of his way to celebrate a program designed to reinforce authoritarian rule. I conclude he either doesn't understand what he is talking about or he is ok with it.

He did not celebrate literacy-for-the-purpose-of-propaganda.   He said that literacy is good.   You add to his words and declare that was his intent.   When I point out that he explicitly stated upfront that he is against Cuban'a authoritarian rule you declare that Sanders is conflicted.    Truly amazing.

You assumed bias in me that does not exist a ...

The confirmation bias at play is obvious.    When someone puts words in others mouths (what you continue to do with Sanders while you dismiss his actual words) to not see that as bias is to be blind.   The stubborn refusal to read his words as he spoke them and the insistence to spin his words into something that does not at all match what he wrote is a perfect example of bias.

I urge you and TiG, and anyone else to read the piece below and come back and tell us how Castro's literacy program was "a good thing" that "helped the people."

Sanders was not speaking of Castro's plan to spread propaganda.   He stated that literacy is good.   He noted that it is a good thing for the citizens of society to be literate.   Period.   

Again, you spin his words as if he stated "teaching people to read so that Cuba could spread authoritarian propaganda is a good thing".    

Cease with the slimy tactics

Wow it never ends, huh?

focus on the content

I wish you would, believe me. You keep accusing me of things like confirmation bias, or that my heartfelt opinion is a joke, or that if I take offense, I'm faking it somehow. And every one of those comments from you has been in response to something I said about the content.

The confirmation bias at play is obvious.

And I keep telling you I'm not biased against him. There is no particular reason I would be. You keep accusing me of it and your evidence is "it's obvious." Why is it so hard to simply let me speak for myself?

When someone puts words in others mouths (what you continue to do with Sanders while you dismiss his actual words)

I haven't put any words in his mouth. I have said what I think the consequences of his words are.

to not see that as bias is to be blind.

I am asking you yet again to let me speak for myself and not presume to accuse me of bias. Please stop! What can possibly be the point - other than to simply discredit my opinion? I have said what I think about Sanders and his comments. You don't have to agree with it, but stop trying to attack my integrity just because you don't like my conclusion.

Do you have a need to defend Sanders? Do you have a bias in favor of him? Notice that I ask the question rather than just accuse you of it. You may speak for yourself.

My mind is open enough that I think reasonable people can disagree on this topic. You seem to think that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with you.

Indeed without literacy, Cuba would be a healthcare and scientific wasteland when in fact, it is the complete opposite.

Just because the USA has some archaic animosity doesn't mean that worldly Cubans don't realize that the party line is full of soup. 

To suggest that Cubans only learn to read in order to read Castro's propaganda is a tunnel visioned conclusion.

What is the purpose of including them in the conversation?

As has been explained - His point was specifically that even though Castro was a horrible person and did horrible things literacy in itself is good.

As much as I disdain out current President and the plans he uses to curb illegal immigration I can still say Trump is for reducing illegal immigration and reducing illegal immigration is a good thing. I can say that without condoning how he goes about accomplishing that goal.

His point was specifically that even though Castro was a horrible person and did horrible things literacy in itself is good.

And my questions - which no one seems to be able answer - are: 1) why is it necessary to boost Castro at all? And 2) why would he bother when he knows that the main thing people fear in him is that he's a communist? The smart play would be to spend as little time as possible on his support for Castro and focus on what he can do to help America. Every time he tries to justify any support for communism, he shoots himself in the foot.

I can still say Trump is for reducing illegal immigration and reducing illegal immigration is a good thing. I can say that without condoning how he goes about accomplishing that goal.

Right, but if he set about doing it and said that Hitler or Stalin or some other monster inspired him, we'd all have genuine cause for concern, wouldn't we?

Nothing but meta.   If you have nothing more to say on the topic then we are done.

which no one seems to be able answer

I answered that multiple times.   Why should anyone bother if you ignore the answers?    

Last time:

Sanders has given reasons in the past for why people in Cuba did not revolt under Castro.   He noted that Castro gave them healthcare, education, etc.    From the 60 minutes interview :

On last night’s edition of the CBS program, Anderson Cooper made sure to give his viewers “both sides” of the debate over whether Sanders is a crypto-totalitarian. The anchor noted that, while “Sanders says the change he envisions most closely resembles Scandinavian and European countries with democratic governments,” both Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg have called his proposals communist. Cooper then offered some evidence for the Trump-Bloomberg position and asked Sanders to respond:

Back in the 1980s, Sanders had some positive things to say about the former Soviet Union and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.  

Here he is explaining why the Cuban people didn’t rise up and help the U.S. overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro: “He educated their kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society, you know?”

Bernie Sanders : We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba , but, you know, it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad, you know? When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?

I do not find this particularly difficult to comprehend.

And 2) why would he bother when he knows that the main thing people fear in him is that he's a communist?

Why does he call himself a 'socialist'?   Who knows, it seems entirely dumb to do this since 'socialism' is still a net negative in the USA.   

One can speculate forever about what is in the man's mind and for the most part one would be wrong (since none of us are good at reading minds).   Thus I support reading words accurately and within context.   

why is it necessary to boost Castro

Fuck... NO ONE BOOSTED CASTRO, not us not Sanders. All of has repeatedly and specifically said Castro is bad.

why would he bother when he knows that the main thing people fear in him is that he's a communist?

Because he's weird guy, not a Communist. 

Every time he tries to justify any support for communism, he shoots himself in the foot.

You, nor anyone else has shown he supports communism in any way. You keep saying that because Castro came up in a comment it must be support even though the comment is prefaced specifically to condemn the authoritarianism.

Right, but if he set about doing it and said that Hitler or Stalin or some other monster inspired him, we'd all have genuine cause for concern, wouldn't we?

Trump IS the monster for the purposes of my illustration.

So you believe it's appropriate to praise the Nazi's anti cancer efforts every time Nazi Germany is brought up?  Imagine a politician who defended Nazi Germany as frequently as Sanders does Cuba and other communist  states.  My guess he would be labeled a Nazi right away.

Who knows if Sanders is a communist? He's a politicians and smart enough to know that openly embracing communism would put an  end to his livelihood.  In an environment were communism was viable, I don't think its out of the question to believe he would, in fact, be a communist.  He certainly has devoted his life to working in congruence and apologizing for communist states, and, in the past, has said he doesn't care if people call him a communist.  Non communists would probably react like Non NAzis to being called a Nazi. Not Sanders.

Sean, read this:

Sanders has given reasons in the past for why people in Cuba did not revolt under Castro.   He noted that Castro gave them healthcare, education, etc.      From the 60 minutes interview  :

On last night’s edition of the CBS program, Anderson Cooper made sure to give his viewers “both sides” of the debate over whether Sanders is a crypto-totalitarian. The anchor noted that, while “Sanders says the change he envisions most closely resembles Scandinavian and European countries with democratic governments,” both Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg have called his proposals communist. Cooper then offered some evidence for the Trump-Bloomberg position and asked Sanders to respond:

Back in the 1980s, Sanders had some positive things to say about the former Soviet Union and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.  

Here he is explaining why the Cuban people didn’t rise up and help the U.S. overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro: “He educated their kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society, you know?”

Bernie Sanders  : We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba , but, you know, it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad, you know? When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?

When Sanders states that he is very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba do you interpret that as him net approving of the system or net disapproving?

When Sanders then goes on to state that literacy is a good thing (no further qualifications, just literacy) do you think he is wrong?

Given Sanders is explaining in this interview why he has said positive things about net-negative regimes, does providing an example of this and explaining what he meant not make rational sense?    That is, is it intellectually honest and valuable to spin his words into:   ' I am in favor of making people literate so that they can understand the propaganda of an authoritarian regime '?

Who knows if Sanders is a communist?

One cannot read minds.   However one can look at what Sanders is proposing and ask the question (the topic of this article):

What are the policies/positions proposed by Sanders that correlate with those of the former USSR?

Are Sanders' policies/positions more aligned with those of the former USSR or of social democracies such as the Nordic nations?

I submit the question is not difficult to answer.

 He simply concedes it's authoritarian nature and then immediately starts touting it's supposed benefits with a lot of more attention than his perfunctory statement against authoritarianism.  Name a socialist dictatorship and Sanders has been an apologist for it. He concedes the minimum possible while emphasizing  the party approved talking points.

Listen to Sanders and you'd think Cubans were risking their lives to break into the socialist paradise.  Really, it shouldn't be that hard to simply denounce a racist police state without having to qualify it.

He says shit that is just wrong. Or, I guess you could call it "correct" so long as you ignore critical details. But that's like serving up a plate of dog shit and then bragging that you "fed the people." e.g.:

“He educated their kids,

No, he indoctrinated their kids. "Education" in a totalitarian communist state has a very specific meaning and purpose.

If he wanted to tout something in Cuba, Sanders would have done better to cite the healthcare system, but again, he doesn't need to. There are many interesting success stories for healthcare around the world that don't involve brutal dictatorships. It is foolishly self-defeating to do it the way he did it because it is entirely natural for voters to ask how much like Cuba he wants us to be.

Would he let reforms develop (or not) through our Constitutional, democratic process? Or would he seek to force his ideas on us? Don't like the questions, Bernie? There's a simple solution. Stop talking about Cuba.

I'm not disputing his current platform owes more to Scandinavia then the USSR.  But, his defense and apologies for the USSR and other communist states isn't really explainable by his stated  support for  Scandinavian style government. One doesn't follow the other.

He simply concedes it's authoritarian nature and then immediately starts touting it's supposed benefits with a lot of more attention than his perfunctory statement against authoritarianism.

Context:

• (question):  Why did the Cuban people not overthrow Casto?
• Sanders:    “He educated their kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society, you know?”

Interview:

• (question):   Aren't your past statements (see above) an indication that you are pro-Communist regimes like Cuba?
• Sanders:      "We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba , but, you know, it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad, you know? When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?"

Yes, those excerpts  demonstrates what I was saying.

Why did the German people not overthrow Hitler? Why did it take the Russians 80 years to overthrow the most murderous regime in history? Police states, like Cuba, are good at perpetuating themselves. 

To gloss over that while answering why Cubans didn't overthrow Castro is dishonest.

No, he indoctrinated their kids. "Education" in a totalitarian communist state has a very specific meaning and purpose.

I see.   So in your world is it not possible to educate people if their education includes indoctrination?   Strange how many people in China and Russia have somehow managed to grow beyond automatons who simply parrot the party lines and have no skills to contribute to society.   Somehow, in spite of the authoritarian systems and all the propaganda, their educations did produce positive results.  

If I were part of an authoritarian system, I would opt for education.   If all I could get was education with indoctrination I would take it rather than remain ignorant and unskilled.    But that is just me.

If he wanted to tout something in Cuba, Sanders would have done better to cite the healthcare system, but again, he doesn't need to.

You have a problem seeing the societal benefit of making people literate?   Would you say then it would have been better for the people of Cuba (in their minds, by the way, since that is the contextual point) to remain illiterate?    Would they choose to remain illiterate or choose to be literate and thus better suited to understand propaganda?    

Sanders' position is that the people of Cuba may have hated the authoritarian rule of Castro but they did like certain aspects of the system and that was enough to not oppose his regime.    

To gloss over that while answering why Cubans didn't overthrow Castro is dishonest.

It was an interview.   He was answering why he made his comments in the past.   He illustrated with an example.   

Good grief.

I'm not disputing his current platform owes more to Scandinavia then the USSR.  

Happy to read that.

But, his defense and apologies for the USSR and other communist states isn't really explainable by his stated  support for  Scandinavian style government. One doesn't follow the other.

If someone were to provide material where Sanders is suggesting it would be good for the USA to move to a system with:

• Single-party, authoritarian rule
• Party class vs. all others;  riches or rags
• Brutal regime eliminating enemies and forcing compliance by government forces (death, torture, etc.)
• Centrally planned command economy controlling virtually all relevant means of production and distribution
• No liberty, individual life controlled by government
• No democracy

Then that would be something I could appreciate.    The fact that Sanders can find good in a net bad does not convince me he is a 'communist' as per the former USSR.

If I were part of an authoritarian system, I would opt for education.

Opt? Like "options?" In an authoritarian system, you wouldn't have options. The Cubans sure don't.

If all I could get was education with indoctrination I would take it rather than remain ignorant and unskilled.

A system of indoctrination into propaganda mixed with suppression of opposing ideas, by it's very design, breeds ignorance. Even a slave can be both literate and skilled.

Would they choose to remain illiterate or choose to be literate and thus better suited to understand propaganda?

Ask if they would choose to be free.

Sanders' position is that the people of Cuba may have hated the authoritarian rule of Castro but they did like certain aspects of the system and that was enough to not oppose his regime.

They also weren't armed, so it's not like they had a big choice in the matter. What do you imagine "opposition" would look like? Elections? Maybe a bulletproof mob marches up to the presidential residence and throws the bum in the ocean?

People who could oppose Castro, even in a small way, did. Usually by escaping .

List of baseball players who defected from Cuba

List of Cuban football players who have defected to the United States

Cuban exile

1,172,899 current Cuban exiles living in the United States

Gee, what could be so bad?

Cuban children were separated from their parents and sent to labor camps known as IPUEC (Instituto Preuniversitario en el Campo), to be indoctrinated in Marxist ideals.

Nice, right? Have fun at prison, err, school!

Freedom Flights

Freedom Flights (known in Spanish as Los vuelos de la libertad ) transported Cubans to Miami twice daily, five times per week from 1965 to 1973. ^{[1] [2] [3]} Its budget was about $12 million and it brought an estimated 300,000 refugees, making it the "largest airborne refugee operation in American history." . . .  Although the Castro government initially allowed citizens to leave, it would eventually discourage emigration by harassing and humiliating Cubans who signed up for the program. The program quickly gained popularity; by March 1968, over one million people were on the waiting list. ^[9] Those on the waitlist were fired from their jobs, deemed "enemies of the state," and hassled by members of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDRs).