Bernie Sanders Supporters Can’t Describe Socialism

Perhaps an indication that voters may not really understand what the economic/political systems are.

CNN asked some people supporting Bernie Sanders to define "Socialist".

Some were befuddled to say the least.

What IS a Socialist anyway?


The sum of all totals of some opinions.

If they don't know what a "Socialist" is, how would they know how much it costs?

The lower dungeons of college don't teach that stuff !!!


Bernie Sanders Supporters Can’t Describe Socialism

CNN’s Baldwin Asks Sanders Supporters to Define the Word ‘Socialist’

At a recent Bernie Sanders rally, CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin asked some of his supporters to define the word socialism. And, well, some of them didn’t exactly know…

Baldwin showed her video of the very enthusiastic Sanders supporters she spoke with on CNN earlier today. A few of them contrasted Sanders with Hillary Clinton.

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't think anyone can accurately describe Socialism, or for that matter Capitalism.

Maybe if we were a democratic socialist country instead of a quasi fascist oligarchic capitalist country we'd have a better education system & people would be able to give you the Oxford definitions which some seem to put so much value on.

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't think anyone can accurately describe Socialism, or for that matter Capitalism.

But in order to describe something, you need something to compare it to right?

a reply to: xuenchen

We shouldn't be surprised, I would consider most here to be intelligent and we have clearly described the specific nature of just about every incarnation of socialism only to be told 'this time is different' or 'you just don't understand how shiny it is'.

a reply to: xuenchen

Rather easy to define. FREE STUFF.

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't think anyone can accurately describe Socialism, or for that matter Capitalism.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and socialism is state ownership of it.

Everything else is interventionism, the futile attempt to manifest an imaginary third way joining the two systems which is not possible as a sustainable economic system, only as an interim progression toward socialism.

a reply to: xuenchen

You are already setting this conversation up by rules that don't apply. Neither Sanders nor his supporters desire to turn the United States into a solely 'socialist' country. I see what you are doing. He and his supporters have been very clear about what he wants to do. The fact there isn't a perfect label for it (or the fact that you can't follow along?) is your big issue?

You know well that Sanders supports a blend of Capitalism and Socialism... pushing policies that benefit the actual people, as opposed to policies that further prop up and defend TPTB, i.e. money out of politics, civil rights, tax evasion, a living wage, revamping the pre-existing social policies that already exist here (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, vets & military etc.).

He has never suggested a takeover of private enterprise and that all means of production transferred to the community (socialism). And you know it.

That Sanders Supporters can not describe socialism is not a surprise.

The Eskimo's have over 100 names just to describe snow, and it is not a word that is constantly misused and has it's meaning twisted to cause fear like socialism has been.

Socialism, can be defined as heaven or hell. depending on your political views.

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.

In its purest form its sharing of wealth and taking care of health and education for all. Scandinavia is a prime example though capitalism are gaining ground. and mass emigration from the middle east without job growth are partially to blame for that.
And taxevation from multinational corporations, making sure that the taxes that should benefit all ends up in different places out of reach.

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.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

"While an equality of rights under a limited government is possible and an essential condition of individual freedom, a claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers."

-Friedrich Hayek

Probably because it's not really socialism. It's social programs. We have them now anyway...with k-12 education, medicaid, welfare, food stamps. The questions are...do we expand some, change some, take some away, add a few new ones? What's the cost?

That last question is were it gets tricky...people on both sides of the equation bombard us with propaganda until we don't know where to get a straight answer.

The cool response on ATS is to say "The Constitution doesn't provide for any social programs at all except maybe a military"

The logical response to that is, it would be nice to live in a Libertarian Utopia but, the reality is that it's not doable in the USA the way things are set up now.

originally posted by: Esoterotica
Maybe if we were a democratic socialist country instead of a quasi fascist oligarchic capitalist country we'd have a better education system & people would be able to give you the Oxford definitions which some seem to put so much value on.

And yet, our public education system is nearly 100% socialist system. How does that compute? If socialism produces better results in education, then you would think our school children would be better educated than they are.

originally posted by: amazing
Probably because it's not really socialism. It's social programs. We have them now anyway...with k-12 education, medicaid, welfare, food stamps. The questions are...do we expand some, change some, take some away, add a few new ones? What's the cost?

That last question is were it gets tricky...people on both sides of the equation bombard us with propaganda until we don't know where to get a straight answer.

The cool response on ATS is to say "The Constitution doesn't provide for any social programs at all except maybe a military"

The logical response to that is, it would be nice to live in a Libertarian Utopia but, the reality is that it's not doable in the USA the way things are set up now.

The military is not a social program... yet.

originally posted by: okrian
a reply to: xuenchen

You are already setting this conversation up by rules that don't apply. Neither Sanders nor his supporters desire to turn the United States into a solely 'socialist' country. I see what you are doing.

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.

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.

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.

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?