RoadWarriorFromLP

I suppose that it was a useful part of his brand as an independent in a low population liberal state. He probably never imagined that he would be a presidential candidate for the Democrats.

Steerpike

I posted this in the WTF thread, but I think it's more relevant here, since people are getting on Sander's case regarding Trump protesters.

Bernie's appearances at events in Phoenix and Seattle were disrupted by Black Lives Matter.

In Seattle: "Sanders ceded the microphone to their leader and eventually left without delivering his speech."

In Phoenix: "A sea of mostly white progressives, including unions, labororers, bloggers, activists and musicians sat watching the drama unfold"

"Black Lives Matter" Protesters Disrupt Bernie Sanders Event In Seattle, Sanders Gives Up The Mic To Them | Video | RealClearPolitics

Black Lives Matter: Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley Stumble During Protest

I think that shows a slightly different approach between Sanders and Trump.

Steerpike

Just how pedantic can one be in this regard? If I vote 'Democrat' and join the 'Democratic Party', I would suggest that makes me a 'Democrat', from a 'voter' perspective. Surely, political and economic models are not cast in stone; they are not scientific formulas. Is a 'Social Democrat' the same in Germany as in France? Does some organization own the definition, with a registered definition that others must conform to in order to use the name? Do these 'definitions' not change over time? As I understand it, they are bodies of thought, attempts to give a name to a wide range of concepts, and exist in part to differentiate from what they are not, as much as define what they are. Yes, there are interpretations of these terms that are accepted in the mainstream, but I don't think you can 'exclude' someone from using a label just because they don't conform to 100% of the ideas contained within the label.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Sanders was an independent until last year. He caucused with the Democrats but he wasn't a member of the party.

He's not a socialist, democratic or otherwise, because he doesn't call for nationalizing industries, which is a fundamental component of socialism.

He doesn't call himself a social democrat, even though he is for all intents and purposes a social democrat. Again, I would say that he avoids this label in part because that makes him sound as if he is a member of the Democratic Party, which he wasn't until he decided to join the presidential race. Hence, his use of the "democratic socialist" label, even though it does not accurately describe his position.

FlaviusAetius

In my Economics 305 class, way back in the '60s, our professor once said that if you put 2 socialists into a room and ask them to define socialism, you would get at least 3 definitions. Nothing has changed.

scrubbedexpat099

RoadWarriorFromLP

Socialism isn't all that complicated. The underlying issue is some sort of opposition to private property. At the very least, that means government ownership of major industries. Some socialists take it further and also oppose other kinds of property ownership.

scrubbedexpat099

But who owns the Government?

kimilseung

I think Bernie is proposing Social programs rather than Socialism.

zargof

https://twitter.com/ArmenChangelian/...743232/photo/1

sir_eccles

But why bother with social programs when you can just cut taxes then cut spending on the social programs. It's working great in Kansas right now! (sarcasm).

Giantaxe

It is easier for some opponents to scream "socialist" - or "communist" - than for them to argue cogently about his policies. Really, labels are a lazy way to debate.

sir_eccles

Strictly speaking, the military industrial complex is one huge social program. They like that one.

Leslie

Loser!

FlaviusAetius

That's an interesting viewpoint. Usually, when someone states that Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, the proponent usually points to Sweden as a success. So I looked into it. In Sweden 90% of enterprises are in private hands, 5% government-owned (the only major is a mining facility in the north) and 5% in the form of co-ops. That is balanced with a high level of state-supplied benefits financed by very high taxes. Is Sweden really an example of a successful socialist country? Probably not, following your definition. So, where is it successful? Not, I understand, that you are making that claim. Venezuela?

Here is the key point in the Wiki article: