Bernie Sanders Supporters Can’t Describe Socialism

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Tearman

Part of the problem is the crony relationship between government and the very type of power you despise. Why would giving government more power fix this? That, to me, is your fundamental disconnect.

Take the power away from the government and the wealth has no purpose there.

Actually good point. My solution would be to make government more transparent. If I had my way with government, nothing would happen behind closed doors.

However, if you go the alternate route, if you take away government's ability to check power, then you're still left with the problem of how to deal with uncheded power. I guess I am open to alternate approaches, but I can't really think of any. I don't think consumerism could become organized enough to fight against the wealthy accumulating too much power.

a reply to: ketsuko

Proponents of Socialism tend to understand that the costs for Social programs come from taxes and are thus NOT free.

Obamacare isn't Socialism. It is forced Capitalism. It forces you to BUY a private product or be fined. Heck, falsely equating Obamacare to Socialism is likely a desire of those on the right so that when we want to move onto universal health care, people push back and cite Obamacare as the reason why not to. Even though Obamacare never was Socialist.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
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.

Looking through responses they aren't the only one that doesn't understand socialism.

originally posted by: Tearman

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Tearman

Part of the problem is the crony relationship between government and the very type of power you despise. Why would giving government more power fix this? That, to me, is your fundamental disconnect.

Take the power away from the government and the wealth has no purpose there.

Actually good point. My solution would be to make government more transparent. If I had my way with government, nothing would happen behind closed doors.

However, if you go the alternate route, if you take away government's ability to check power, then you're still left with the problem of how to deal with uncheded power. I guess I am open to alternate approaches, but I can't really think of any. I don't think consumerism could become organized enough to fight against the wealthy accumulating too much power.

Any effective government is going to be a mix if many things.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The concept of insurance in general is socialist - pooling resources for the common good. So Obamacare forced everyone to pool their resources. Why don't you appreciate having to pool your resources?

Likely because it's far more expensive than you imagined it would be and you resent being forced to do it when you know it's a bad deal. Welcome to socialism. Oh and let's not forget the ones you are paying for in the bargain because they can't afford the resources to pool but must be covered anyway so you "help" them into the pool with the rest.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

Proponents of Socialism tend to understand that the costs for Social programs come from taxes and are thus NOT free.

Obamacare isn't Socialism. It is forced Capitalism. It forces you to BUY a private product or be fined. Heck, falsely equating Obamacare to Socialism is likely a desire of those on the right so that when we want to move onto universal health care, people push back and cite Obamacare as the reason why not to. Even though Obamacare never was Socialist.

The other important fact that is lost on many contemporary advocates of socialism is that socialism proper, having no market, is incapable of making catallactic calculations which means that it can't determine value and therefore cannot properly allocate resources. To date, all socialisms have had neighboring market economies which allowed them to dance around that caveat and capital savings to consume, at least initially.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The concept of insurance in general is socialist - pooling resources for the common good. So Obamacare forced everyone to pool their resources. Why don't you appreciate having to pool your resources?

Um no... Insurance was created as a private product and is pure Capitalism.

Likely because it's far more expensive than you imagined it would be and you resent being forced to do it when you know it's a bad deal. Welcome to socialism.

Because being forced to buy a private product isn't Socialism.

Nobody is talking about turning the us into the soviet union. Nobody wants it. No one will try to do it. It will never happen. Get over it.


And BTW, I don't believe the right will or wants to turn us into a theocracy either!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It was created and sold as a private product but how it works is socialist in nature. A bunch of people pay into a pool against never or seldom needing to take out. The pooled resources are then used to help pay for bills that none of them can cover on their own.

The company manages the pooled resources in such a way as to best husband them to cover all their clients' needs.

The only thing missing is pure state control of the resource pool.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It was created and sold as a private product but how it works is socialist in nature. A bunch of people pay into a pool against never or seldom needing to take out. The pooled resources are then used to help pay for bills that none of them can cover on their own.

It may take elements from Socialism, but it isn't Socialism. This would be like calling the song Under Pressure a rap song because Vanilla Ice used that backbeat for his one hit wonder.

The company manages the pooled resources in such a way as to best husband them to cover all their clients' needs.

The only thing missing is pure state control of the resource pool.

Please just stop with this. You are really stretching with your premise here and really driving home to me that you clearly don't understand Socialism in the slightest.

You don't have to be an economics major to like someone's proposed policies. Duh. How many Cruz or Trump supporters can explain supply side economics? I'm sure there are some, but it's obviously not a prerequisite for supporting a candidate.

I don't know the definition of Socialism, but I sure do know the policies of my candidate. If I wanted to know the definition, I'd look it up like any normal person. Obviously the conservatives are getting really scared of good old Bernie and have very good reason to be.

Most conservatives that attack Bernie as a Socialist is all they have as an attack anyways, so if other Bernie supporters are anything like me their opinion usually falls on deaf ears.

a reply to: xuenchen

That's because the right keep on using the WRONG WORD.

NO ONE is asking for the government to own land, business, etc.

That's what socialism is.

Neither can Hillary Clinton or Debbie Wasserman because they can't tell the difference

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Do you think there will come a day when these kinds of discussions can take place without hurling insults?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But that is what socialism is to many people. The idea that they won't have to pay directly out of pocket.

They all buy into the idea that someone else will do it for them. Then people are upset when that "someone else" winds up being them. Hence likely why you don't think of Obamacare as socialism. But guess what? It was designed to pool everyone's risk for a common good - the paying of your health care. Of course, everyone demanded that no one could be left out and that someone who goes to the doctor tomorrow and discovers stage four cancer also can't be left out. So your bill ends up being high ... but it is socialist - the pooling of resources for the common good.

I know many Bernie supporters in my area. Not one look at it that way. We all have the same vision, give the power back to the people. Yes, we all love a good capitalist economy, but lets face reality here. Corporations are buying laws everyday that take the power from the people and give it to themselves. They have monopolized America to a point where everyone is starting to notice, not just the ones that pay attention.

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But that is what socialism is to many people. The idea that they won't have to pay directly out of pocket.

They all buy into the idea that someone else will do it for them. Then people are upset when that "someone else" winds up being them. Hence likely why you don't think of Obamacare as socialism. But guess what? It was designed to pool everyone's risk for a common good - the paying of your health care. Of course, everyone demanded that no one could be left out and that someone who goes to the doctor tomorrow and discovers stage four cancer also can't be left out. So your bill ends up being high ... but it is socialist - the pooling of resources for the common good.

I know many Bernie supporters in my area. Not one look at it that way. We all have the same vision, give the power back to the people. Yes, we all love a good capitalist economy, but lets face reality here. Corporations are buying laws everyday that take the power from the people and give it to themselves. They have monopolized America to a point where everyone is starting to notice, not just the ones that pay attention.

And the question here is do you think this somehow isn't a problem, and if you do think it is a problem, what do you think should be done about it. It's not enough to say that the one solution is the wrong one, because the problem still remains.

a reply to: amicktd

Most conservatives that attack Bernie as a Socialist is all they have as an attack anyways, so if other Bernie supporters are anything like me their opinion usually falls on deaf ears.

Attacking a politician for his policies... that's unheard of. You might also notice Conservatives avoid attacking people's character. We'll leave that for other political affiliations.

originally posted by: Tearman

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But that is what socialism is to many people. The idea that they won't have to pay directly out of pocket.

They all buy into the idea that someone else will do it for them. Then people are upset when that "someone else" winds up being them. Hence likely why you don't think of Obamacare as socialism. But guess what? It was designed to pool everyone's risk for a common good - the paying of your health care. Of course, everyone demanded that no one could be left out and that someone who goes to the doctor tomorrow and discovers stage four cancer also can't be left out. So your bill ends up being high ... but it is socialist - the pooling of resources for the common good.

I know many Bernie supporters in my area. Not one look at it that way. We all have the same vision, give the power back to the people. Yes, we all love a good capitalist economy, but lets face reality here. Corporations are buying laws everyday that take the power from the people and give it to themselves. They have monopolized America to a point where everyone is starting to notice, not just the ones that pay attention.

And the question here is do you think this somehow isn't a problem, and if you do think it is a problem, what do you think should be done about it. It's not enough to say that the one solution is the wrong one, because the problem still remains.

Bernie Sanders on the issues

That's what needs to happen in my opinion.