Confirmed!

If Bernie wins the nomination, I will do everything I can to help him get elected.

But the chances are pretty good that he would go down in epic defeat.

For whatever reason, Americans are allergic to the word 'socialist'.

where he's singing the praises of outright socialism. There's been pretty much zero opposition research of Bernie done.

I like him, but he's not a GE candidate.

is what MOST Americans want for this country?? That 7 out of 10 young people WANT this kind of Socialist Democratic Govt.

Love it, thanks, will spread it around, he is the very best and most exciting candidate I remember in my lifetime, and I know I am not alone.

He is RIGHT of course, the resources of this country DO belong to the people, NOT to a handful of Wall St executives. Excellent!

And I also doubt that 7 out of 10 young people actually want the government to own the major means of production. I don't know where you got those numbers.

You're talking about Norway, or just making shit up?

you know, the network that over 50 million Americans watch?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024362938#post71

He hasn't evolved or changed.

He evaded the question whenever it is asked of him, but like all Democratic Socialists, their end game is the end of capitalism. They're just happy to get there at a slow pace.

And yes, it makes getting him elected impossible. Nominating Bernie would be like handing the White House to Republicans on a silver platter and asking them if they want fries and a diet coke with that.

WILL come back to haunt him:

5. In a speech he gave at the National Committee for Independent Political Action in New York City on June 22, 1989, reprinted in the December 1989 issue of the socialist publication Monthly Review: “In Vermont, everybody knows that I am a socialist and that many people in our movement, not all, are socialists. And as often as not — and this is an interesting point that is the honest-to-God truth — what people will say is, ‘I don’t really know what socialism is, but if you’re not a Democrat or a Republican, you’re OK with me.’ That’s true. And I think there has been too much of a reluctance on the part of progressives and radicals to use the word ‘socialism.’”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265#ixzz3kAy40T4x

"Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production, it means decentralization, it means involving people in their work. Rather than having bosses and workers it means having democratic control over the factories and shops to as great a degree as you can."

Nothing wrong with that. As opposed to free trade, wage-suppression, increased privatization and every other aspect of neoliberalism that has been the dominant ideology for the last 40 years (since The Powell Memo).

"Socialism" is one of those terms that causes some to froth at the mouth, and the anti-socialism rhetoric has clearly served its purpose. [Same with "white privilege" and "feminism" and "multiculturalism." But we shouldn't stop discussing those things either.]

But the fact is the US would collapse without socialism. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/13/1370620/-75-Reasons-Not-to-Fear-Socialism

It's just that many fail to realize that. One hilarious (yet sad) example: " target="_blank">

Again, the frothing at the mouth of reactionaries and the promotion of ignorance (it doesn't help that 6 giant corporations run 90% of the mainstream media in the US) has been quite successful, sadly.

But plenty of polls show that a majority of people are more ideologically in tune with Sanders. http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/more-and-more-americans-agree-bernie-sanders-and-not-just-those-who-identify-left.

So, it isn't that the public at large is ideologically-opposed to the DU population. It's that most people don't pay close attention to politics and are overly influenced by media campaigns that focus on labels and other non-substantive matters. When asked directly about specific policy, however, it's clear that Sanders reflects large majorities of the US population.

All that is to say that pointing out how "anti-socialism" people are, according to some survey, is a sorry attempt to turn a complex matter into a black-and-white issue. It'd be much better for all of us, in the long run, to help make sure the public is better informed.

And it's more than just the label. This surely can't be the only time Bernie has advocated for public ownership of the means of production (which is as close as it gets to a textbook definition of socialism). You think the American public is interested in eradicating private industry and putting large portions of the economy under government ownership? Think again.

public ownership doesn't necessarily equate to "government ownership." And, as I pointed out above, there's already a massive amount of public ownership. It's just that a misinformation campaign has hidden that reality from people.

Period.

Period.

Aren't you the guy who's also attempted to re-define "anarchist" so that you're not embarrassed by your claim to be one?

Or am I thinking of another "anarchist"?

That's part of the reason our whole political discourse is so screwed up. Because people can't tell the difference between the two. They think of Socialism and they think of Lenin's command economy while in fact the type of economy being described would be the exact opposite, bottom up rather than top down.

Your post is non-responsive.

Especially in the context of what Bernie was speaking of. If you read the whole thing.

You, however, should be embarrassed to think that public or common ownership automatically means state ownership. As an anarchist, that is patently false.

BTW, "common" ownership does not equal "public" ownership, which does equal "state" ownership.

You, as an anything, should at least understand non-controversial definitions of words.

"Common" is much more along the lines of "public."

You should be embarrassed.

The definition of "public ownership" is simply not in dispute:

Oxford Dictionary

And it's not like this is the first time the phrase "public ownership of the means of production" has appeared. All these attempts to redefine everything are hilarious.

public ownership of the means of production. Who knew that all Marx really wanted was a bunch of IPOs?

"But that's not what he meant!"

Some standard-bearer. Doesn't even understand plain English?

I'm reminded of those who continued to insist that Sen. Warren didn't mean what she said when stating, over and over again, that she wasn't going to run for President.

Parse this, redefine that, psychoanalyze her, contextualize him...

How droll.

Strange choice of words, given that "public ownership" is a common phrase that everyone understands to mean government owned. Wonder why he phrased it so badly?

Sure, there are variations, but this is classic socialism. The government runs large industry, and smaller industry is organized in worker-controlled cooperatives.

Regardless, whatever flavor of socialism he had in mind, it's not going to win a national election in the US.

You're right that the government runs a lot right now, but the "major means of production" are largely under private control.

your rapid-fire responses signal that you aren't interested in discussion or reading the material presented to you (material that proves a majority of the population is in line with Sanders whether they realize it or not, material that demonstrates socialism is all around us whether people realize it or not, etc.). Instead, your objective is to promote an agenda. And I'm not playing that game. Peace.

when the were working on companion bills looking for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve....
At the last minute he bagged his own bill and voted for a watered down version.

What was the deal there?

Paul was really disappointed, he had no warning.

"Oh, I'll just float this out there as a concerned citizen with a question ... see if it sticks."

Nice try.

Search and you will find it...TRY

I think it was House Bill 1207 in 2009...Senate 604

I found the post in a hate Hillary thread...the bill nos. are correct

I think part of the reason the campaign is catching fire is because we (especially young people) realize the current system is unsustainable and is causing grave inequality in our country. Public ownership of the means of production -- having the people have a say in their company, and benefit from its productivity-- is a good thing and is the direction we should be moving in as it would both decrease inequality and increase democratic participation. The people dull enough to be scared by the word socialism will be voting for Trump or whatever tea-bagger they prop up anyway.

Good for Bernie.

The thing is, the American public doesn't agree. At all.

Which is what we have and is currently getting worse and is not being helped by status quo politicians like Hillary who like to promote their babies like NAFTA and TPP. I think the American people realize the need for some change and the need for them to get more share slice of the pie, also I don't see a call to eradicate all private industry anywhere in that statement.

As far as free trade, that polls pretty well.

And, yes, "public ownership of the major means of production" means eradicating private industry.

I'd hope the American people have better concepts of the issues rather than simple buzzwords in the first place. "Free Trade" might poll well, but I don't think, shedding jobs overseas, losing purchasing power, and losing Americas industrial base polls well.

People are aware of corporatism - in whatever word they want to call it. Why do you think the two corporatist candidates (Jeb and Hillary) are sliding way down in the polls? And the two candidates who railing against the establishment are drawing the most energy?

Again, no where in that statement did Bernie call for the eradication of private industry.

the profit incentive that provides so much energy to society's engine has proven disastrous wherever tried.

FWIW, Bernie's now a lot older, and I'm guessing wiser.

As a plain old pragmatic liberal progressive, not a wingnut radical one, I'm totally against profound destruction of valuable, established ways to embark on giant social and economic experimentation. We've done many things well in progressive era that were trashed and abandoned as part of the "Reagan Revolution" beginning in the late 1970s. Since conservatives chose to destroy, instead of conserve, much that built the prosperous, vigorous America those of my age remember with longing, it's up to us to salvage, tweak, change as needed, and build new. But not destroy -- except the right's creation of the new billionaire class that is so inimical to a prosperous democratic republic. That has to go.

I also don't think Bernie was advocating seizing factories and cancelling the profit incentive.

If you look at the sentences before the one which was posted on here it says:

"When you have people controlling their own lives rather than working for other people...Democracy is pretty revolutionary. What democracy means to the greatest extent possible is that people have the right to control their own lives...And again, nobody but an idiot has a blueprint of how you bring that about in a country of two hundred and thirty million people in a highly complex economy. We do know a direction that we should be moving in..."

The original intent of share trading was to let regular people buy a percentage of a company, thereby giving them say in how the company operates and get a piece of the profits. It still works that way to some degree, but we all know how tarnished the concept has become thanks to some very greedy, very rich folks.

He's talking about making major industries government run.

public ownership of the means of production. They are still owned by privately owned and privately controlled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

who own the stock.

That's different than the government or 'public' actually owning the company.

work in them. Most likely based on the Mondragon model of a federation of cooperatives and employs 74,000 people.

Democratic control of the means of production. Anything else is theft and tyranny.

We prefer the Wal Mart model of capitalism

I can't find that quote at the link

Third column, couple inches down.

And in a 1989 op-ed in the Burlington Free Press, Sanders lambasted “the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties,” and praised the National Organization of Women “for supporting the need for a progressive third party in this country.”

“Like millions of other Americans, NOW understands that the Democratic and Republican parties are intellectually and morally bankrupt,” Sanders wrote.

“We do not have an effective national political movement which is prepared to fight for power,” argued Sanders, “and which challenges the basic assumptions and priorities of the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties – two political parties which have no substantive ideological differences and are, in reality, one party – the party of the ruling class.”

But, throwing the ever convenient Red scare usually works. Just not as well as when Joe McCarthy used it.

Hell would freeze over before I vote for Hillary. Even if I have to write his name in.

is the scratchy video of Joe Stalin standing on red square as the tanks roll by with the scary music and captions rolling in the back round of the "hundreds of millions of deaths" caused by socialism and communism. Red-baiting foul-doggery at it's finest...

A certain segment of his constituency. All politicians do it. I also want to read further as politicians are often asked questions where the answer is more of a definition than a personal belief. Sanders has a lot of comments and votes that show clear signs he personally isn't even close to a socialist. Red meat is red meat. This is how politicians pander to those who work the hardest for them. It's his base. Just watch as every single supporter of his here thinks this is a great comment by him. He knows politics, is a politician, and knows his base. He had been Mayor of Burlington for about six years at this point and had his sights set on something bigger. Two more years as Mayour and then off to run for Congress. He ain't no fool.

Or why should democracy end when you are at work?

Bernie's campaign is the one with activist supporters and energy and momentum. Completely independent of the campaign, people are writing songs for Bernie, creating sand sculptures for Bernie, leafletting Manhattan for Bernie. An awful lot of people like what he is saying today.

I wore my Bernie T-shirt to the bank and the teller, a young man in college, asked me where I got it, asked me if I knew Bernie still walks to work, and then told me how Bernie was the only one in the race he trusted. Then at the grocery store the cashier smiled and said 'Go Bernie!' as she checked me out.

In 2004, Howard Dean had similar excitement in his campaign before any voting began. Then, in Iowa, cooler, more realistic heads prevailed, and the electable candidate won the caucuses - John Kerry. A senator who had voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, thus proving he was a moderate, mature Democrat, so much more palatable to middle America. We went on to lose the election. Turns out Kerry wasn't so electable after all.

In 2008, Iowa followed the youthful energy and ignored the 'he can't win' naysayers and chose Obama. He went on to win the nomination and the election.

I'm not going to choose my candidate today based on my fears of what other people might say about a 30 year old Bernie interview. I'm supporting the candidate I want to be president, not the one some pundits declare is electable. I don't think Hillary is as electable as others believe, with her vote on the IRW a continuing impediment to winning an election.

My fingers are crossed that Iowa caucus goers follow the lead of the young voters and vote for what they really want, not the person they are convinced is electable. It's my feeling we'll be more likely to win that way.

Are you seriously comparing some article about what Obama supposedly believed in college to comments that Bernie made while being the 46-year-old mayor of Burlington?

And are you implying that Bernie is no longer a socialist? He's certainly kept calling himself a socialist through the years. Has Bernie explained why he no longer thinks the state should own the means of production? Like I said in the OP, the excesses of capitalism have only gotten worse since 1987. When did his capitalist epiphany come from?

My point is somehow, Obama managed to get elected, despite the right wing portraying him as a crazy black radical socialist, and his own past as a community organizer (activist).

This effort to prove that sanders is the reincarnation of Che Guevara today in 2015 is just Red Baiting. The GOP is expected to do that. Sad to see Democrats engaging in it.

are the same as some right-wing hit piece about what Obama supposedly did in college. This is getting a little crazy.

Nobody is saying that Bernie is Che Guevara, but he plainly stated that he is for public ownership of major industries. Which is not surprising, since he has described himself as a socialist his entire career.

Do you think he still believes that? If not, when do you think he changed his mind and why?

I think a lot of Pope would prefer to see more companies in which workers have a stake in the company have a say in how its run, and are compensated for the company;s success.

And al ot of people believe that some basic essential public services should be controlled by government for the public interest. That used to the the Mainstream Norm...Municipal utilities, public roads, etc.

That's basically what he is talking about.

Bit he's also a realist and is working towards his ideals within the system -- just as many people, Obama and Clinton included,

"Public ownership of the major means of production" has a meaning, and it is very different from "some basic essential public services should be controlled by the government for the public interest."

I get what you are saying about being a realist, but here's the thing. If his ideals actually are what he says they are in this interview, that is relevant information. Which is why I'm asking about whether you think his views (i.e. his ideals) have changed.

People keep saying "he's not a socialist" but obviously he was one in 1987. If he's changed his views, that's noteworthy. If he's still as much of a socialist as before but he's just not talking about it because of electability reasons, that's also noteworthy.

And in the unlikely event that he wins the nomination, this kind of stuff is going to be talked about.

Remember checks and balances? What are you so worried about?

Bernie has already told you precisely what changes he would like to make as President and public ownership of production is not one of them.

I do not think that is what you are seeing.

Cheers!

... most of us spend the better part of our lives in a work environment that is anything but democratic?

Go Bernie Go!

It is a line from several paragraphs wherein he was defining the revolutionary aims and "flaming rhetoric" of Todd Manley of the Liberty Union Party from 15 years before, in the early 70s. I guess it's easy to miss the actual context when you're skimming a long article to cherry-pick and misrepresent. Your whole OP is wrong, as you keep going on about 1987.

Maybe he stopped somewhere between 1987 and now, but in 1987 he believed that Democracy meant having the government own the major means of production.

In theory, government SHOULD be the same as the public, but you are cynically using the fact that there is a distrust of government to make Sanders look fascistic now.

It is dishonest, transparent, simplistic and churlish.

If you ever went to college, perhaps you discussed ideas in an academic way, separate from the untidy and not so pretty real world?

Well, it's like that.

What YOU are trying to do is essentially say "Hey! Sanders wants the (untrustworthy) government to take over private businesses!"

In doing so, you make yourself sound like a paranoid right-winger tea bag, but putting that aside for a moment, you also reveal that you are unable to deal with an academic conversation.

Which means that, yes, Sanders is in fact advocating for the government to own the means of production. It's kind of weird that you are insisting that I not use the word "government" to describe a system of government ownership of industry.

And, yes, the one problem with this is that the world is untidy, and the government is not always trustworthy. Public ownership of the means of production might sound great in theory, but it doesn't work so well in the "untidy and not so pretty real world." Good point. That's why I'm not a socialist, at least not the 1987 Bernie variety of socialist.

And all indications are that Bernie also understands the difference between theory and reality.

It seems strange that you would think that you know more about the limits of political theory vs. reality than a guy who has butted against political reality for 30 years.

And, no I don't think that he's actually going to nationalize any major industries, whether or not he still thinks it would be theoretically a good idea to do so, which I also don't know.

In fact, as I've said on several occasions, I don't think a Hillary presidency would be too different from a Bernie presidency, because in both cases the limiting factor is going to be what can be gotten through congress. There are even some things on Bernie's platform I probably disagree with -- single payer, for example, I'm not sold on -- but I'm not worried about that because there's no way single payer is going to pass.

The biggest difference is that Bernie is not electable.

"A black man will never be elected."

"Gay marriage will not happen in my lifetime."

"Marijuana will never be legalized."

"We will never have a female police chief."

The world is filled with examples of things that put an end to the fallacious "never" argument.

To do it, though, you have to do it.

I think it is cowardly to not do the right thing out of fear that others will not follow suit.

But it does exist, and the presidency is too important to throw to the GOP.

It was wrong then, in that context, and it is still wrong. And cowardly. And anti-Progressive.

No, I said that using the "he can't be elected argument" is like using the "he can't get elected argument".

Because it is.

Must have misread.

Anyway, yes, electability is an important consideration in choosing a presidential candidate. Obviously. We don't want a Republican president, hopefully we agree on that.

Use that.

Yes, I know the interview was in 1987. But in that quote from the interview he was, as I said, CLEARLY defining the "revolutionary aims" and "flaming rhetoric" of Todd Manley, in answer to a direct question about exactly that from the interviewer. Ummmm????

First of all, he said "we" meaning that those views were shared by him and that Todd guy when they were together in the LUP, and also, it's completely obvious that he still held those same views in 1987 when the interview was taken.

Do you really think if he still held those same views, that he would call it "flaming rhetoric"?!

I can't teach reading comprehension, sorry.

And vocabulary too. You do know that the word "rhetoric" refers to the kind of language used, word choice, figures of speech, etc., and not to the underlying ideas, right? Apparently the Todd guy used flaming rhetoric, which Bernie didn't recall well, but as for the ideas, yes, it's clear that he still held those views at the time of the interview.

in which he CLEARLY states that in 1987 he held those views. Stop inferring it from these passages explaining Todd's philosophy in 1972, and claiming it's obvious that Sanders believed that in 1987.

And Sanders was not the governor of Vermont in 1987... or any other time.

He's articulating his worldview. It would be one thing if he went on to say "but I don't believe any of that stuff anymore now that I'm big," but he didn't. He left LUP not because he suddenly changed to a capitalist, but because it wasn't accomplishing anything.

You're right about governor, I meant mayor of Burlington, my mistake.

and all you can provide is an out-of-context quote. Enough.

For example, in 1983,

After he was re-elected in 1983, and voters swept in a more progressive City Council, Sanders gained a stronger foothold in City Hall. With the support of local Republicans and business leaders, he created the Community and Economic Development Office (CEDO) to carry out his vision for more affordable housing, more locally owned small businesses, greater community engagement in planning, and job development.

And instead hand the White House to the GOP on a silver platter, smile and ask them if they want fries and a diet coke with that too?

No thank you. Knowing that 50% of the country won't vote for him is an important piece of information to have.

I thought "reality" is that nothing can get done for the next 35 years until we have passed through the gerrymandered Congress and the moon is in the seventh House and all of the planets are astrologically aligned perfectly.

So why not go for broke, nominate the Dirty Commie, er socialist, and see what happens? Hey, let's have a little fun since the WH is irrelevant? And if we lose by running a Dirty Commie, er socialist, those whiny leftists who support the Commissar, er socialist senator, will go back to Russia where they belong.

The particular Democratic President doesn't matter. All that matters is that a Republican doesn't get elected who in conjunction with a Republican congress would tear down a lot of important things.

And not fear mongering?

that candidate has to say on the issues.

nt

Your work is done.
E-grade.

n/t

The actual quote, wherein Sanders was referring both to Kennedy and Nixon, is...

[link:|

Is she the only one who is allowed to "evolve"?

cause that evolution. After all, if he though American capitalism was excessive in the 70s and 80s, it's more so today.

on his current views.

A sure winner.

Im sure I said some silly shit in 1987, too.

But if that's where we're going, its a bit disingenuous to complain about people bringing up Hillary's stances on gay marriage, flag burning, or the iraq war from 10 years ago.

Hillary for evolving to now insist that it's OK for Bernie to do the same.

Personally, I have no problem with Bernie's newfound capitalist views, but the problem is, the GOP isn't going to respect the DU edict that any criticism of Bernie is out of bounds. You can bet this isn't the only time Bernie has praised straight-up socialism, and you can also bet that the GOP is going to find all the other examples as well.

I think he can handle it, though.

doubtful he'll do any worse than this-