Bernie Sanders: ‘Democratic Socialist’ Or Out-And-Out Stalinist?

a reply to: ketsuko

He wants to control how production occurs, but someone else is welcome to own the factory he dictates all the terms to.

NO. He does NOT.

Cheesy Gripes - isn't "bearing false witness" a bad thing to do?

Stop lying. You should be ashamed. Political trolling and baiting. Very bad form.

originally posted by: yesyesyes


Sanders is firmly opposed to the authoritarian policies that Stalin carried out.

So he will administer his own authoritarian proposals as mere suggestions instead?

American conservatives are far more in line with the authoritarian aspects of Stalinism, pro torture, pro military might, pro mass incarceration, among other things.

You appear to have confused conservatives with neocons. It's an easy mistake to make in the currently cunfused and muddied political environment.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
People falling for this tea party socialist rhetoric that began with that evil Stalinist Obama. After 8 years Obama has changed America into a communist state where the richest have increased their wealth.

That's right! Obama has been very effective at moving the country to the right, toward greater inequality and domination by corporations and the rich. He is clearly a marxist communist. [/sarc]

a reply to: nenothtu

So he will administer his own authoritarian proposals as mere suggestions instead?

What are those?
If it is just taxes then lets save the time. Taxes are not authoritarian.

Maybe you guys are right. I tried to drive into Vermont the other day and there was a KGB checkpoint at the border. They confiscated my copy of "Moscow on the Hudson" but let me through. I couldn't find any toilet paper, they were rationing it pretty hard, and what really struck me were the giant murals on many of the walls of Sanders and Stalin walking hand in hand. I didn't stay long.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: nenothtu

So he will administer his own authoritarian proposals as mere suggestions instead?

What are those?
If it is just taxes then lets save the time. Taxes are not authoritarian.

They're not? So I can just send a letter to the IRS and let them know that I've decided to pay lower taxes than they'd like, and they'll just let me slide? To be honest, I've got my doubts about that - I'm pretty sure they'd come round to see me with bells on - and probably guns drawn.

All government is authoritarian - it cannot function without exercising authority. What we're really talking about is a matter of degree. What we already have is authoritarian, and daily increasing it's grip. unless Sanders intends to reduce the size, scope, and power of the government over the citizenry, he is an authoritarian. All politicians and bureaucrats are, to one degree or another. Furthermore, there has never been a Socialist regime in the history of the world that has reduced it's authoritarianism - and Sanders is, as I understand it, a self-proclaimed "Democratic Socialist".

Are you saying that Sanders intends to reduce the size, scope, and power of the government?

a reply to: nenothtu

They would just ignore you if you sent that that letter. Now if you didn't pay then sure, just like if I walk out of the store with out paying. I guess price tags are authoritatism to you too.

Sanders wants the gov to work for the people paying into it, not the corps.

originally posted by: nenothtu
All government is authoritarian - it cannot function without exercising authority.

You know, you're almost right.

This is what we've established for ourselves as a people. We've bestowed the institution with authority that we've agreed by majority vote to abide by. It's democracy in action to effect the republic. It is exactly what we the people have brought upon ourselves and have little, to no, intention of radically altering.

Why would Sanders intend to reduce the size, scope, and power of the government? His supporters and himself have a deeply held belief that government, granted power by the majority of participants, can effectively make for a better way of life and institute modern liberty in the form of economic independence.

So no, smaller government is not better for the people. More efficient government is. If you don't agree, that's fine. That's a fundamental part of our system of governance, the right to disagree.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: nenothtu

They would just ignore you if you sent that that letter. Now if you didn't pay then sure, just like if I walk out of the store with out paying. I guess price tags are authoritatism to you too.

Ridiculous comparison. If you refuse to do business with a store, no storm troopers come to coerce you to do business with it. So no, price tags are not authoritarian.

Sanders wants the gov to work for the people paying into it, not the corps.

The purpose of a government is to govern, not to give you "free" stuff, so it's likely that Bernie and I have vastly different ideas of what "working for" entails. Government can give us nothing that it has not first taken away. In order to give us more stuff, it has to take more stuff away. that is the very path to authoritarianism.

So again, how do you propose Bernie is going to exercise even more authority without being more authoritarian? Just a nice line of patter and a few "pretty pleases"? Government by suggestion rather than government by coercion?

a reply to: links234

We DO disagree, but it's good to be able to do so civilly.

Government can regulate economic policy, but it cannot give us, you or I, economic independence. that's something we have to get on our own - that's sort of the notion behind the term "independence"... i.e., not being dependent on any one else. Furthermore, when government gives us "free" stuff, it is decidedly NOT fostering any sort of economic independence, it is rather fostering and promoting our economic dependence on the government.

When government takes even more from us (regardless of how it "pays it back" to us), it reduces our capacity to build an economic independence, because we have less to work with. The government is taking our finances, and deciding FOR us how they are to be deployed, rather than allowing us to decide for ourselves the best use of it.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against taxes. they are a necessity for a government to function. I firmly believe that The People are far better served, however, when fewer taxes are taken, and in order to do that, the government has to be pruned back to actual governing functions, so that it requires less taxes to function. That's the whole idea behind my notion of "smaller is better" in regards to government. For example, try as I might, I can find no plausible, rational reason that the IRS should be allowed to involve itself in my health care choices.

I have to quote the last bit I'm going to respond to:

If you don't agree, that's fine. That's a fundamental part of our system of governance, the right to disagree.

I'm old now, and I can recall a time when that was literally true. That right is increasingly being encroached upon now, with "free speech zones", labeling opposing viewpoints as "hate speech", and the like. If a handle is not gained on that sort of thing, the day will come when that is no longer a part of the system. Of course that right will still exist, because it is not a mere government-issued privilege, but it will be up to you and I to individually enforce it for ourselves, rather than being built-in to the system.

I'll fight for yours if you'll fight for mine.

originally posted by: nenothtu
Ridiculous comparison. If you refuse to do business with a store, no storm troopers come to coerce you to do business with it. So no, price tags are not authoritarian.

That's not true at all. If you've ever tried to walk out of a store without paying someone is going to stop you or, at least, make you pay. Now, I don't know your precise definition of 'storm trooper,' but somebody is going to come after you. It's very much like how our current system of governance works. We, the people, realize we need to pay taxes to fund our government so we pay those taxes. It's an agreement between our government, which we've established, and ourselves.

I mean, how do you not understand this? We vote for people and they enact the policies on our behalf. If you don't like it, you vote for someone else.

The purpose of a government is to govern, not to give you "free" stuff, so it's likely that Bernie and I have vastly different ideas of what "working for" entails.

You probably do have vastly different ideas, that's ok though. I believe governing includes providing for the safety and well-being of the citizenry.

So again, how do you propose Bernie is going to exercise even more authority without being more authoritarian? Just a nice line of patter and a few "pretty pleases"? Government by suggestion rather than government by coercion?

We've tried government by suggestion, that was what the Articles of Confederation were. The Founders moved to a more reasonable system of government under the Constitution. Are you suggesting we scrap the Constitution and go back to a system that we've tried and recognized as a failure?

Now...what exactly is wrong with agreed upon authority? We have afforded the government the authority to carry out certain duties. That's part of what elections are about. If you don't like it, you vote for someone else.

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: nenothtu
Ridiculous comparison. If you refuse to do business with a store, no storm troopers come to coerce you to do business with it. So no, price tags are not authoritarian.

That's not true at all. If you've ever tried to walk out of a store without paying someone is going to stop you or, at least, make you pay. Now, I don't know your precise definition of 'storm trooper,' but somebody is going to come after you. It's very much like how our current system of governance works. We, the people, realize we need to pay taxes to fund our government so we pay those taxes. It's an agreement between our government, which we've established, and ourselves.

I mean, how do you not understand this? We vote for people and they enact the policies on our behalf. If you don't like it, you vote for someone else.

My understanding of the matter stems from several years I spent as one of those storm troopers. I can confidently assert that simply walking out of a store without paying is not grounds for chasing someone down - they have to have stolen something, or there at least has to be reasonable suspicion that they have. Refusal to do business there is not grounds for detaining anyone, regardless of whether they walked through the store or not. There is absolutely no comparison between private business and governmental coercion in the matter - business cannot force you to buy anything from them (with the exception, so far, of insurance companies, who use the strong arm of the government to coerce us into playing their silly lottery with our own money). Government, on the other hand, CAN force us to make purchases we neither want nor need.

The purpose of a government is to govern, not to give you "free" stuff, so it's likely that Bernie and I have vastly different ideas of what "working for" entails.

You probably do have vastly different ideas, that's ok though. I believe governing includes providing for the safety and well-being of the citizenry.

I believe safety (from harm by others) yes, well-being, no. We are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, but attaining it is entirely on us, not the government. I do not want the government to provide my happiness, because that gives them the power to decide what makes me happy.

So again, how do you propose Bernie is going to exercise even more authority without being more authoritarian? Just a nice line of patter and a few "pretty pleases"? Government by suggestion rather than government by coercion?

We've tried government by suggestion, that was what the Articles of Confederation were. The Founders moved to a more reasonable system of government under the Constitution. Are you suggesting we scrap the Constitution and go back to a system that we've tried and recognized as a failure?

No, that's not what i was suggesting at all - I was asking if that was Bernie's plan for government without authority. As you have pointed out, it didn't work before, and is highly unlikely to work if tried again. The choices are very limited - either he will be authoritarian, or he won't. The assertion has been made that he won't, so I'd like to know how he plans to govern without it.

Now...what exactly is wrong with agreed upon authority? We have afforded the government the authority to carry out certain duties. That's part of what elections are about. If you don't like it, you vote for someone else.

That is exactly what I plan to do - I never agreed to give the government the authority to decide my private purchases for me, nor did I agree to give it the extreme of authority it has seized in this day and age. I agreed to give it the authority to govern, but I never agreed to micromanagement.

a reply to: nenothtu

So you use nothing that tax dollars pay for? I doubt it. That is the comparison with the store.

If you don't want to pay taxes, stop using any gov services and then maybe you can try and use that stance.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I'm wondering how well that would work. You can't use the roads, because taxes build them and maintain them. You don't always need a police officer or a fireman so that's pretty easy to avoid. Probably can't use electricity because the fuel they use to generate the power is subsidized by the government. Can't use hydrocarbons like gas and oil because those industries are subsidized by the government to keep prices low. Avoid flowing water sources because they're regulated by interstate agreements and the EPA.

Their isn't much you can do to avoid our government services. Mostly because of the way we've implemented them. You may not like them but that's the important part of voting. If you want to complain about the government, start with the ones giving them the power...the voters. More specifically, the ones who don't vote at all.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: nenothtu

So you use nothing that tax dollars pay for? I doubt it. That is the comparison with the store.

If you don't want to pay taxes, stop using any gov services and then maybe you can try and use that stance.

False argument. I've already made it clear I don't mind paying taxes, but it goes deeper than that. I am specifically speaking of federal taxes and federal government, and that should have been clear since Sanders is not running for my local board of supervisors. Police and fire, neither of which services I avail myself of, are local. I'd be more than happy to get the federal government out of their local business. I don't use local roads, either, much less interstate roads, so there's that. I don't drive at all, and work is within walking distance, just a couple miles through the woods and over the mountain.

Even at that, i don't mind paying taxes so other folks can use the roads, but I mostly avoid paying for roads by not buying fuel.

Maybe you could be more specific as to what federal "services" I may use. Then we can figure out what a fair price for those services may be. Somehow, I doubt the bean counters in DC are going to care either way.

originally posted by: nenothtu
Maybe you could be more specific as to what federal "services" I may use. Then we can figure out what a fair price for those services may be. Somehow, I doubt the bean counters in DC are going to care either way.

It's part of our system. You're not supposed to be able to avoid it. Specifically, paying taxes and not using those services they cover. Some examples;

National defense; The war's not in your backyard, so you don't see an immediate effect. However, it also goes towards taking care of people who are no longer fighting, the veterans. Every time you see a GI graduate from college using the GI bill, you helped make that happen.

The national park service; You may never see the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone or Denali, but your taxes help fund the effort to keep those places open so that others may see and experience them.

EPA; keeping interstate waterways clean and allowing people to drink clean water without getting sick. Also funding the clean up of hazardous sites that preceding generations didn't have the foresight to realize were toxic.

Medicare/Medicaid; you probably don't go to the doctor all the time, some people can't afford to...whether they're unemployed, under employed or retired. Your taxes help those people.

Social Security; same as above. Some people have this belief that there's some sort of individual trust fund for everyone that pays into social security. That's false. Everyone gets the same benefits no matter how little or how much they pay in. So, God forbid, you turn 65 and a year later have a debilitating stroke, your SS check will still come in the mail, no matter what.

Education; you help fund the education of future generations. A smarter populace makes for a more prosperous nation. Mostly local, but you also fund the education of other states as well, helping to ensure that everyone has an equitable education regardless of race, color, class or creed.

Now you may be saying to yourself, 'I don't use any of that and if I ever needed to I would be able to do it on my own.' That's fine...at the same time though, you're just a small part of that big picture. It's our collective effort that makes it possible for everyone, no matter how rich or poor they are, to participate in our society. If, tomorrow, we changed it so that only people that use those services would pay for them then we'd lose them. A lot of them help the poor and destitute, you can't squeeze water from a rock. Visitation to national parks alone would skyrocket into hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars just to get in the door.

There are places that need to be cut, sure. I totally believe that. There is revenue that can be generated too though. You're right about bean counters not caring either way. If just you stopped paying, it wouldn't shut down the government and you'd still be entitled to all the things that the government has promised to provide you. It wouldn't really help anything either.

a reply to: links234

I would argue that EVERYONE uses education. If you use any products that were invented in America such as lets say, the internet to post on this website, or the transistor that runs your computer you're making use of the American education system.

Education is about much more than an individual or their child being educated, it's about having a society that can create new and worthwhile products, which improves quality of life and the economy. Without a proper education system this doesn't happen.

Education and scientific research (which is just another form of education) are the two forms of spending that have the highest returns for society.

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: nenothtu
Maybe you could be more specific as to what federal "services" I may use. Then we can figure out what a fair price for those services may be. Somehow, I doubt the bean counters in DC are going to care either way.

It's part of our system. You're not supposed to be able to avoid it. Specifically, paying taxes and not using those services they cover.

Precisely. And that is why trying to use not paying at a store is a poor analogy. We have the option to simply not do business with a store, but we do not have that option regarding the Federal government. Stores can be avoided (except, apparently, insurance agents - but the fascism involved in that is really a topic for another thread), but it's extra difficult to avoid the Federal government, by design.

Some examples;

National defense; The war's not in your backyard, so you don't see an immediate effect. However, it also goes towards taking care of people who are no longer fighting, the veterans. Every time you see a GI graduate from college using the GI bill, you helped make that happen.

National defense is Constitutionally mandated, and has been from the beginning, although a standing army in peacetime is not - but we've seen damned little peacetime in the past several years, and there will be none in the foreseeable future, either.

The national park service; You may never see the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone or Denali, but your taxes help fund the effort to keep those places open so that others may see and experience them.

NPS is not Constitutionally mandated, and we could do without it. I wonder how much that would cut out of the budget?

Other things that could be done away with, and no one would notice, are ATF, DEA, and TSA/Homeland Security. Along with doing away with DHS, a side benefit would be that local law enforcement would once again become local, responsible to the constituents rather than responsible to the sugar-tit of Uncle Same via DHS "handouts". I wouldn't keep ANY Federal law enforcement beyond FBI and the US Marshall's Service, which is why there are a lot of folks damned glad that I'm not running things.

EPA; keeping interstate waterways clean and allowing people to drink clean water without getting sick. Also funding the clean up of hazardous sites that preceding generations didn't have the foresight to realize were toxic.

I gotta tell you, they're doing a poor job of it around here, but that's not unusual for this area - we're still paying for what we're not getting, though, like good little proles. We have a nice new up-armored humvee for the Sheriff's Dept, though, so there's that. Thanks, DHS! Luckily, I know where all the clean springs are here, so I don't have to depend on EPA to bail me out.

Medicare/Medicaid; you probably don't go to the doctor all the time, some people can't afford to...whether they're unemployed, under employed or retired. Your taxes help those people.

I don't go to doctors at all, ever. Well, that's not strictly true - one day last year I went to a nurse's station, first time I'd been to a medic in over 25 years. I paid for that, though. The government never even noticed, which is just the way I like it. The thing is, from my perspective, my taxes are not supposed to pay anyone's medical bills, mine included. that is not a function of governing.

Social Security; same as above. Some people have this belief that there's some sort of individual trust fund for everyone that pays into social security. That's false. Everyone gets the same benefits no matter how little or how much they pay in. So, God forbid, you turn 65 and a year later have a debilitating stroke, your SS check will still come in the mail, no matter what.

A few years ago, I started getting statements from SSA showing how much I could expect to draw, based upon how much I had paid in, and the statements my wife at the time got differed from mine, because she had paid in a different amount. Those notices magically stopped coming - I wonder why? No matter, I got a letter from the federal govt, a few years back that said in no uncertain terms that I would not draw a dime, not if I lived to be a thousand, so I don't concern myself with Social security any more - but I still pay it in, because the option to opt out, even in the face of never getting even what I paid in, is not present. SO - I'm not buying that ev3eryone gets the same benefits. I won't be getting any at all. Mt SS check will never come in the mail, stroke or not.

Education; you help fund the education of future generations. A smarter populace makes for a more prosperous nation. Mostly local, but you also fund the education of other states as well, helping to ensure that everyone has an equitable education regardless of race, color, class or creed.

I think the feds ought too get out of the education business, and it should be a local matter, but then again no one from the government bothered to ask. In spite of federal "intervention", kids around here do not get an equitable education, and never have. LBJ stopped into a town a few towns over in the 60's, declared a "War on poverty", and that's the last we heard of it - we've yet to hear the first shot fired in that war. I have no idea who is getting the benefit of my federal tax dollars earmarked for education, but I can see who isn't - all I have to do is step out my front door.

Now you may be saying to yourself, 'I don't use any of that and if I ever needed to I would be able to do it on my own.' That's fine...at the same time though, you're just a small part of that big picture. It's our collective effort that makes it possible for everyone, no matter how rich or poor they are, to participate in our society.

Participation in our society only requires a bit of effort, not federal funding. One just has to get off one's ass and start participating.

If, tomorrow, we changed it so that only people that use those services would pay for them then we'd lose them. A lot of them help the poor and destitute, you can't squeeze water from a rock. Visitation to national parks alone would skyrocket into hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars just to get in the door.

I'm one of those that wouldn't miss those services if we lost them, but then I've put in a bit of effort over time not to become dependent on them. Others haven't gone that route, because they've never seen a need to.

There are places that need to be cut, sure. I totally believe that. There is revenue that can be generated too though. You're right about bean counters not caring either way. If just you stopped paying, it wouldn't shut down the government and you'd still be entitled to all the things that the government has promised to provide you. It wouldn't really help anything either.

And there's the rub - I'm not entitled to anything the government provides beyond simple governing. Those promises, and entitlements, and for "someone else", and I'm good with that. I do not have an entitlement mentality. One thing is sure, though - if I just stopped paying (not something I advocate, by the way), I bet I'd suddenly see a whole lot of government services, from behind an iron grating.

a reply to: nenothtu

If you want to get right down to it, welfare programs, education, roads, and agencies that improve the public health could all be considered defense. You don't get fancy toys for the army without an educated population, the government itself won't be stable if people are homeless and especially hungry, roads are a necessity to transfer troops/equipment, and health should be obvious because an unhealthy population won't fight very effectively.

yEP I KNEW IT.