Sanders Refuses to Address Latin American Socialist Failures on Univision

There's often been times around American elections, that Canada gets referred to as a socialist country.
Maybe this time people have figured out that the food stamp program in the states is far more "socialist" than any welfare we have up here.

That said, clearly there's different degrees of socialism. There's Norway, and some other Scandinavian and some European countries, and then there's Venezuela.....

originally posted by: Cabin
a reply to: NthOther

Bernie does not address the issues, because he is not a socialist. He is Social Democrat (Democratic Socialist). These are two extremely different ideologies besides the fact that both contain the word "socialist".

They don't let facts get in the way of their opinions.

Well, let's hear it!

How will it be different than brazil and venezuela and norway, bernie?

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Well, let's hear it!

How will it be different than brazil and venezuela and norway, bernie?

Use the search function or do some research, it's only been discussed more times than I have time to count.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Well, let's hear it!

How will it be different than brazil and venezuela and norway, bernie?

I am slightly ignorant on this issue but why are you lumping Norway in with Brazil and Venezuela? Isn't the quality of life indexing pretty high there?

Is it somehow just as bad as the South American socialist countries? I am interested to know, this seems to me a semantic glossing over of fairly obvious differences between more and far less successful brands of "socialism" but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt here because as I said, I am still learning in this arena.

Thanks in advance for any clarification!

a reply to: Kali74

Regarding Latin Socialism... we have no idea what that actually looks like so how can we judge it?

Um...What?

Venezuela? Cuba?

No idea what it looks like? Those are just the two obvious examples because they are in the news. But Argentina has a shaky socialist government, and so does Brazil.

Latin America has been a long case study on how crappy socialism actually is.

a reply to: projectvxn

Yeah... Venezuela and Cuba, both heavily interfered with by the US, Argentina and Brazil as well, did you not read the rest of my post?

a reply to: NthOther

Socialism is government control of the means of production.

Bernie wants to win an election. He can't win if he really described what he wants to do.

So he lies.

Maybe he's closer to communist than socialist.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: projectvxn

Yeah... Venezuela and Cuba, both heavily interfered with by the US, Argentina and Brazil as well, did you not read the rest of my post?

This is a good point I don't see mentioned often.

Maybe the lack of CIA intervention in Norway is why it works so well?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Bernie does not want government control of the means production. He wants to change what we spend our taxes on.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: projectvxn

Yeah... Venezuela and Cuba, both heavily interfered with by the US, Argentina and Brazil as well, did you not read the rest of my post?

Isn't that always the excuse of the socialist?

My entire plan failed so its the US' fault?

What about the factories in Venezuela refusing to operate at a loss, where the owners are threatened with arrest and their factories seized? Is that the US' fault as well? Or maybe its failed socialist policy?

With socialists its always "If we can just do it again we can get it right". You haven't, you won't, and never will.

a reply to: atomish

It works in several European countries fairly well, not perfectly... nothing* is immune to corruption however they seem a whole hell of a lot further away from Oligarchy than we are.

*I think true Socialism (worker ownership of the means of production) as an economic model (that's only been imagined and never seen) combined with little to no government would be the best defense against corruption. Unfortunately I don't think humanity is anywhere close to that being possible. In the mean time though I think Democratic Socialism is the way to go... Capitalism and taxes with the people in greater control of how taxes are spent.

a reply to: projectvxn

Isn't that always the excuse of the socialist?

Or because things actually happened that back up what I'm saying.

Listverse

Why would one want to compare a third world country that used to be under the foot of america, cant propaganda, it cant be to dirty the word socialist.

Same song same dance, same posters pretending they know better.

Get an education, so in the real world you might not sound so sily.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: atomish

It works in several European countries fairly well, not perfectly... nothing* is immune to corruption however they seem a whole hell of a lot further away from Oligarchy than we are.

*I think true Socialism (worker ownership of the means of production) as an economic model (that's only been imagined and never seen) combined with little to no government would be the best defense against corruption. Unfortunately I don't think humanity is anywhere close to that being possible. In the mean time though I think Democratic Socialism is the way to go... Capitalism and taxes with the people in greater control of how taxes are spent.

Thanks for the response!

As I've stated, this is an area I am trying to absorb knowledge in so your comment is appreciated. I believe our Oligarchy, as you've correctly stated in my estimation, is the result of Capitalism being corrupted in similar ways to how any economic system can be leveraged and exploited against the people it was meant to serve.

I've always kinda felt like Capitalism is a natural stepping stone. It was one of the driving forces behind this country's meteoric rise but I've always felt it was to be a means to an end.

I think when all is said and done and the smoke clears, the "perfect" system will be a hybridized form of equal parts capitalism, equal parts socialism. Of course, we first need to root out the corruption that would fell ANY system and reign it in to be able to remain accountable to those in charge, aka us.

Thanks again for your post, as well as the other posters here on both sides of the issue actually presenting valid arguments. I appreciate it any time I get a real, informative response here. I don't remember the political dialogue here being so vitriolic in my time lurking as it is now, so these kinds of responses are refresing.

Here is an honest question.. could part of the problem (comparing say Norway to Venezuela) be the population difference... seems like the larger the population coupled with a more bloated red tape filled government the larger the number of people trying to "game" the system.

Which can gum things up and eventually break the system... Or so it seems to me..

a reply to: atomish

It's nice to see someone willing (I rarely am myself, ashamedly) to discuss economic models and their long term effects with such an open mind and without hatred.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Here is an honest question.. could part of the problem (comparing say Norway to Venezuela) be the population difference... seems like the larger the population coupled with a more bloated red tape filled government the larger the number of people trying to "game" the system.

Which can gum things up and eventually break the system... Or so it seems to me..

My guess would be that population size would ABSOLUTELY have some kind of impact. We can always compare metrics on a per capita basis but that ignores the potential overhead that's comes with a larger and larger beauracracy. I imagine such considerations could skew those numbers.

In reference to my previous post, this is one of the reasons I think a hybridized system will be necessary but is also a reason why I think we will always need to maintain some level of organization similar to the 50 states we have for everyone to be represented fairly and for the system to be run efficiently.

Smaller, on-the-ground governmental units will always be more successful than a larger, top-down overriding unit, IMHO.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: atomish

To even admit as such is to grow!

It can be difficult to yield on things where we have long standing opinions. I've found that once I realize that, at the heart of it, we all want the same things but, individually, have no clue of the perfectly correct answer, I am able to foster growth in myself.

This is a struggle for me, I am working on correcting many years of being addicted to feeding my ego and instant gratification. But I have learned how small I am in the face of the Universe and this has humbled me. We all have something to contribute to the whole.

Once we can own that we don't know much at all in the grand scheme of things, it becomes easier to discuss these things openly and sometimes, it even becomes easy to modify some stances on issues just by virtue of opening your ears!

I've read many of your posts and while I don't agree with you on all things, you DO seem to present logic and fact to back up your stances. For that reason, even if I disagree, I know you believe what you are saying wholeheartedly and that fact alone is enough for me to listen with open ears, heart and mind.

Of course, there are trolls and people who literally only want to stifle discourse. That's fine, they will always be there. The rest of us can ignore them and continue our discussions so hopefully, in the end, we've all put our heads together and have found the answers we seek.

On our own, we have substance. But together, we are substantial.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DBCowboy

Bernie does not want government control of the means production. He wants to change what we spend our taxes on.

Lets just call it what it is.

Communism.

Bernie (and Hillary for that matter) wants government to mandate a living wage.

Basically, they want government to provide the basics for everyone.

Communism.

I'm so sick of people playing with definitions and dancing around the word.