Bernie Sanders Supporters Can’t Describe Socialism

originally posted by: Tearman
Private individuals should not be able to accumulate that much wealth (and thus power) unchecked. It just makes no sense to allow so much power to fall into so few hands.

And there in lies the reason we don't want people like you getting power. You have the misplaced idea that you have a right to decide what and how much free individuals can have, when in fact you have no right. For you to enforce such tyrannical standards, you would need a dictator and you would need guns.

a reply to: woodwardjnr


We are on Capitalism 2.0, it's a faster stronger version, well for those at the top anyway.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Tearman

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Tearman
I think most Sanders supporters have pretty clear ideas about why they support him and don't realy give a damn about your definition of socialism.

Yes, they want to use the brute force of government to forcibly take money away from people they don't like, so they cane have "free" stuff.

Way to put words in other people's mouths. Good job.

Much of Sanders campaign platform is based on taking down those evil, nasty rich people on Wall Street and in corporate offices by making them fork over 90% of what they make ... oh and taxing every stock transaction on Wall Street which sounds real, real good until those idiots get their 401(k) accounts ... and giving them free college, free health care, free ...

So, please explain to me how that statement was at all inaccurate:

use the brute force of government to forcibly take money away from people they don't like, so they cane have "free" stuff.

That's fine with me, white collar society needs to die anyways.
Anyone who makes over a million dollars a year is worshipping the golden cow at the expense of all humanity & that makes them evil.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

Considering how badly the right misrepresents Socialism, I'm not surprised. It's hard to get a consistent answer about what Socialism is and isn't. Then that propaganda bleeds over to the left because people want to have balanced perspectives and get confused. Heck conservative members are doing it here in this thread.

Yes, its "the right's" fault that there are so many examples of failed socialist states. I bet you think its "the right's" fault people fear Muslims too. Is there anything your boogyman isn't responsible for?

Failed Socialist states? Most of the 1st world is Socialist to some degree, with the countries with the highest standards of living being the most Socialist. Your view of reality is warped buddy.

PS: Yes it is the right's fault that people fear muslims.

I see.

So "the right" flew planes into buildings, blow themselves up with suicide vests all over the world taking as many people as possible with them, make videos in which they behead people, burn them alive in cages, slit their throats on beaches, threaten everyone who does not say "Allahu Akhbar ...

Yep, I can see how "the right" is really to blame for all of it.

This isn't the topic for this conversation.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Tearman

So giving that much power to the government is INSANE, but as a Bernie supporter it's what you want.

Exactly. THEY want the power to decide what people get and how much they can have. It blows my mind that people like this cant see the sheer hypocrisy of their position.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


You mean like the War on Drugs?

Yes, just like that. So you agree with me?

I agree that the War on Drugs is a conservative policy and not a socialist one.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

Considering how badly the right misrepresents Socialism, I'm not surprised. It's hard to get a consistent answer about what Socialism is and isn't. Then that propaganda bleeds over to the left because people want to have balanced perspectives and get confused. Heck conservative members are doing it here in this thread.

Yes, its "the right's" fault that there are so many examples of failed socialist states. I bet you think its "the right's" fault people fear Muslims too. Is there anything your boogyman isn't responsible for?

Failed Socialist states? Most of the 1st world is Socialist to some degree, with the countries with the highest standards of living being the most Socialist. Your view of reality is warped buddy.

PS: Yes it is the right's fault that people fear muslims.

I see.

So "the right" flew planes into buildings, blow themselves up with suicide vests all over the world taking as many people as possible with them, make videos in which they behead people, burn them alive in cages, slit their throats on beaches, threaten everyone who does not say "Allahu Akhbar ...


So with that narrow minded analysis, you understand and agree that Police and White men should be feared?

I don't understand why anybody would want someone to become astronomically wealthy. Wealthy enough to hoard media and begin to control the flow of information. Wealthy enough to skirt the law, to buy their way out of any mistake or wrongdoing. To exercise influence over vast portions of the population, over the environment, where it is very difficult to contest them. Why should anybody be allowed to accumulate that much power?

originally posted by: Esoterotica

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Tearman

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Tearman
I think most Sanders supporters have pretty clear ideas about why they support him and don't realy give a damn about your definition of socialism.

Yes, they want to use the brute force of government to forcibly take money away from people they don't like, so they cane have "free" stuff.

Way to put words in other people's mouths. Good job.

Much of Sanders campaign platform is based on taking down those evil, nasty rich people on Wall Street and in corporate offices by making them fork over 90% of what they make ... oh and taxing every stock transaction on Wall Street which sounds real, real good until those idiots get their 401(k) accounts ... and giving them free college, free health care, free ...

So, please explain to me how that statement was at all inaccurate:

use the brute force of government to forcibly take money away from people they don't like, so they cane have "free" stuff.

That's fine with me, white collar society needs to die anyways.
Anyone who makes over a million dollars a year is worshipping the golden cow at the expense of all humanity & that makes them evil.

Who exactly is going to fund your life after you've killed off all the money makers?

a reply to: ketsuko

Bad news for the GOP: America isn’t scared of Bernie’s “socialism”

What is it with conservatives never understanding the lessons of fairytales? A couple of years ago, political watchers found out that while Ted Cruz is a great fan of Dr. Seuss’s “Green Eggs and Ham,” multiple readings had apparently not been enough for him to absorb its real lesson. Now in the upcoming presidential election, the GOP could get a hard lesson from “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Maybe despite their sneering advice to college students to forego liberal arts educations, at least some of them should have majored in literature.

Let us savor the irony. The simple moral of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” as stated at the end of the Greek version of the fable, goes like so: “This shows how liars are rewarded. Even if they tell the truth, no one believes them.” After decades of crying wolf over various Democrats trying to turn America into a socialist dystopia, Republicans might finally face a self-described socialist in a presidential election at the exact moment that fear of socialism is at its lowest ebb in decades.

source

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Tearman

So giving that much power to the government is INSANE, but as a Bernie supporter it's what you want.

Exactly. THEY want the power to decide what people get and how much they can have. It blows my mind that people like this cant see the sheer hypocrisy of their position.

I think allowing the government to check that kind of power is a far cry from giving the government that kind of power. Plus, if the power is in the hands of democracy, at least we have the theoretical ability to do something about it. What can you do if a billionare has that power? Nothing at all.

originally posted by: greencmp
The military is not a social program... yet.

So you define socialism in a way that does not include the US military? No wonder people have such a hard time defining socialism. Personally I find I disagree with you here but maybe I am the one who is wrong.

Is the military socialist? I say "yes"

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Tearman
You know there's a pretty big difference between these two things.... one, making sure a small number of individuals don't accumulate overwhelmingly disprpoportionate levels of power. And two, having the state take over everything.

The first point is what motivates me as a Bernie supporter. Private individuals should not be able to accumulate that much wealth (and thus power) unchecked. It just makes no sense to allow so much power to fall into so few hands.

See what I mean... who are you to dictate who has too much wealth? Would you care how much wealth someone had if they blew it on your ideology?

They're cool with that. Having money and power is fine as long as you're enforcing a tyrannical, left wing ideology. Want proof?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: okrian

We have it now and it's destroying the economy. I think the experiment needs to end before we start to look like Greece ... or Venezuela.

Maybe you're right. Though frankly I'm not sure I trust the private sector to give a crap about most things the government does which most people take for granted.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
capitalism seems to represent trickle down economics from a plutocracy

While the theory preexisted in the academy, the familiar quote "trickle down" actually comes from Bush Sr. during his campaign where he made it clear that it meant that he would give special tax breaks only to certain people and industries deemed by the IRS to be "producers".

It was an interventionist government policy having nothing to do with the free market.

I believe because since the support for Sanders, for many is a new thing. They didn't know who he was prior to him running this election nor were familiar with socialism. They are new to it and may go on memes for the definition of it and or one sided views of it, which either side may be aligning with when it comes to turns for or against socialism.

What's concerning for me is not so much socialism(even though I do not align with it), is that some are saying that since they believe socialism is alright, that communism may be something they would support as well.

originally posted by: Tearman
I don't understand why anybody would want someone to become astronomically wealthy. Wealthy enough to hoard media and begin to control the flow of information. Wealthy enough to skirt the law, to buy their way out of any mistake or wrongdoing. To exercise influence over vast portions of the population, over the environment, where it is very difficult to contest them. Why should anybody be allowed to accumulate that much power?

It's not about whether or not we like the idea of those things.

It's about giving you the power to "allow" anybody else. If you can't see why it's wrong to give that kind of power over life and death and what other individuals can or cannot do to any body of human individuals, then you are part of the problem.

So, you appoint a government that does what you think you want today, but now that it has that degree of power that you've given it. It has that power over everyone, and there is no stopping it. It can come for you next.

So, no, I don't necessarily like the uber wealthy, but defending their rights is defending my own.

originally posted by: Devino
This would be called a straw man argument. Not a very good one, by the way, as it isn't that easy to "knock over" as is evident by the many discussions found here on ATS over Socialism.

And this would be called deflection. You are merely throwing out the term "straw man" in a blind attempt to negate. Besides referring to vague "discussions" (and most likely those discussions pre-defined by those who have an agenda when it comes to explaining what socialism is) as your support? Address the fact that Sanders doesn't actually want to implement pure 'socialism'... by any definition.

Besides, where did I ignore the actual content of the post... I addressed it directly. The last line of my post did give a fairly standard global definition of socialism.

The false narrative in the OP is clear.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: ketsuko

Bad news for the GOP: America isn’t scared of Bernie’s “socialism”

Bad news for the country. Also, that's a far left website. I'm sure their america is just fine with socialism and even communism.

originally posted by: ketsuko


So, no, I don't necessarily like the uber wealthy, but defending their rights is defending my own.

Bingo. For as empathetic as the left purports to be, they sure do have trouble understanding this concept.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Esoterotica

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Tearman

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Tearman
I think most Sanders supporters have pretty clear ideas about why they support him and don't realy give a damn about your definition of socialism.

Yes, they want to use the brute force of government to forcibly take money away from people they don't like, so they cane have "free" stuff.

Way to put words in other people's mouths. Good job.

Much of Sanders campaign platform is based on taking down those evil, nasty rich people on Wall Street and in corporate offices by making them fork over 90% of what they make ... oh and taxing every stock transaction on Wall Street which sounds real, real good until those idiots get their 401(k) accounts ... and giving them free college, free health care, free ...

So, please explain to me how that statement was at all inaccurate:

use the brute force of government to forcibly take money away from people they don't like, so they cane have "free" stuff.

That's fine with me, white collar society needs to die anyways.
Anyone who makes over a million dollars a year is worshipping the golden cow at the expense of all humanity & that makes them evil.

Who exactly is going to fund your life after you've killed off all the money makers?

Who cares, we aren't an egalitarian society & it's doubtful we will ever be. The world will be a better place once all humans are dead & Fukushima might see to that sooner than we think.