2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

[theprestige]

Interesting. Yet again, the sins of totalitarianism and oligarchy and the corruption that they promote are blamed on Marxism, nevermind that the people doing such aren't even remotely following the actual teachings of Marx.

Marx predicted that humans would evolve a utopian society, as a natural reaction against the limits and failures of industrial capitalism.

Lenin proposed that such a society could be built intentionally, without waiting for natural evolution to take its course. He proposed that such a society didn't even need to wait for late-stage industrial capitalism, to be built.

Thus Marxism-Leninism. Instead of waiting for the workers of the world to evolve naturally into a communist utopia, bloody revolution and totalitarian control over society will give the Party the freedom they need to build the utopia Marx envisioned.

The program failed, and the Leninists couldn't admit it. So they spent decades trying to cover it up. "Of course we're a Marxist utopia! Of course our society is superior to Western capitalism! That's why we're able to produce the best athletes!"

The conclusion I've reached is that Marxism includes both the utopic vision of Marx himself, and the excesses of tyranny that emerge when Marxists try to keep the promise alive long after the vision proves bankrupt. Putting on a good show at the Olympics isn't Marxism. But superior athletes are an expected outcome of the Marxist utopia. So Marxists have to produce them, or else admit that their utopia... isn't.

---

ETA: Coming back around to the topic: I don't think Bernie is a revolutionary communist. I doubt he's a Leninist of any stripe. I'm pretty sure he's a non-totalitarian socialist-idealist. He'd want to push wealth redistribution policies, but in the American system, in the current Overton window, all he'd really achieve is an incremental move towards a more European-style social democracy. Which wouldn't be the end of the world, if it happened.

 

[theprestige]

Terminology Sidebar!

Social Democracy - A liberal democracy with a capitalist economy, that values a relatively robust social safety net, and a relatively high amount of profit-redistribution to pay for it.

Democratic Socialism - A limited democracy with a socialist economy, that values a social safety net only insofar as it's a necessary side effect of furthering the Party's ideological and economic goals.

IN MY OPINION, OF COURSE. I mention this only in the sense that this is how I evaluate Bernie: He may be a secret Democratic Socialist, but the practical result of that in the American context would simply be a twitch or two towards more social democracy. Maybe a push to give labor unions more negotiating power.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

"Regardless of having literally just being told that despite the minor quibblings over which evolutionary path is right, the whole bloody/violent overthrow thing was an entirely different ideological camp, I'm gonna go ahead and repeat that very same debunked nonsense again. It all happened around the same time period and "those people" are all basically the same, so I'm gonna go ahead and lay every bad act at the feet of the 2 or 3 people who's names are the only ones I know."

 

[Aridas]

Thus Marxism-Leninism. Instead of waiting for the workers of the world to evolve naturally into a communist utopia, bloody revolution and totalitarian control over society will give the Party the freedom they need to build the utopia Marx envisioned.

In short, a right-wing perversion of Marx's ideas, which pointedly stood in stark opposition to various calls for bloody revolution. And, of course, given totalitarianism, any communist utopia that requires more than a year or two to reach would probably just not happen at all, given the nature of totalitarianism... which is something that I quite suspect that the ringleaders would know.

The conclusion I've reached is that Marxism includes both the utopic vision of Marx himself, and the excesses of tyranny that emerge when Marxists try to keep the promise alive long after the vision proves bankrupt. Putting on a good show at the Olympics isn't Marxism. But superior athletes are an expected outcome of the Marxist utopia. So Marxists have to produce them, or else admit that their utopia... isn't.

I disagree. Much as my disagreement primarily revolves around refusing to accept the conflation of actual Marxism (and the problems that it has) with the perversion of Marxism that is being focused upon (which has an almost entirely different set of problems).

ETA: Coming back around to the topic: I don't think Bernie is a revolutionary communist. I doubt he's a Leninist of any stripe. I'm pretty sure he's a non-totalitarian socialist-idealist. He'd want to push wealth redistribution policies, but in the American system, in the current Overton window, all he'd really achieve is an incremental move towards a more European-style social democracy. Which wouldn't be the end of the world, if it happened.

That sounds like a fair assessment, I think.

Social Democracy - A liberal democracy with a capitalist economy, that values a relatively robust social safety net, and a relatively high amount of profit-redistribution to pay for it.

Democratic Socialism - A limited democracy with a socialist economy, that values a social safety net only insofar as it's a necessary side effect of furthering the Party's ideological and economic goals.

IN MY OPINION, OF COURSE. I mention this only in the sense that this is how I evaluate Bernie: He may be a secret Democratic Socialist, but the practical result of that in the American context would simply be a twitch or two towards more social democracy. Maybe a push to give labor unions more negotiating power.

Mmm. In actual practice, the term Democratic Socialism is pretty much interchangeable with the term Democratic Capitalism. The main shifts in the power to affect the economy involve 1) shifting a bit of the power from the board of directors to the employees (so things like the board unilaterally deciding to move factories over to Mexico or China to increase profits while screwing over the American workers is much less likely to happen and the actual workers are more likely to get a greater share of the profits than they do now under the philosophy that the stockholder is supreme) and 2) shifting influence over *necessary* services to be more subject to government control/regulation and thus reduce or remove the for-profit's inherent motivation and ability to increase prices and decrease service from the equation (to put it simply). It's still an economy that's capitalist in nature, just with more inherent checks on the features of capitalism that end up leading capitalism to self-destruction.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It would be a lot better if we could just discuss ideas and whether or not they are good for the country instead of acting like the only thing worth doing is assigning economic, social, and political labels that were codified for 18th Century Europe.

It would also be better if Jimi Hendrix appeared on TV, saying he and John Lennon faked their deaths, and were going on tour together and that's about as likely to happen.

Whether or not Bernie Sander's plans for America are good or not is a valid point of discussion. Whether or not Charles Fourier or Karl Marx would define it as socialism is not.

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting. Yet again, the sins of totalitarianism and oligarchy and the corruption that they promote are blamed on Marxism, nevermind that the people doing such aren't even remotely following the actual teachings of Marx.

There are a number of things worth poking at when it comes to Marx and the ideas he promoted, but seriously, stop trying to let totalitarianism and oligarchy off the hook for their sins!

You can shout "no true Marxist" all you want to, but this is the only kind that actually occurs in the real world.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It would be a lot better if we could just discuss ideas and whether or not they are good for the country instead of acting like the only thing worth doing is assigning economic, social, and political labels that were codified for 18th Century Europe.

It would also be better if Jimi Hendrix appeared on TV, saying he and John Lennon faked their deaths, and were going on tour together and that's about as likely to happen.

Whether or not Bernie Sander's plans for America are good or not is a valid point of discussion. Whether or not Charles Fourier or Karl Marx would define it as socialism is not.

It's probably worth pointing out that this country could take a massive leap to the left and still be well within the bounds of free-market democracy. Bernie only seems extreme because this country has had multiple decades of rule by two parties that were either far-right or center-right.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again I'm not overly concerned with the whole "But in other countries your left center would be our right diagonal..." or see what point it makes.

Again none of this makes sense unless you're the kind of person who treats the political spectrum as... like a natural law it's the Electro-magnetic spectrum.

 

[plague311]

Again I'm not overly concerned with the whole "But in other countries your left center would be our right diagonal..." or see what point it makes.

Again none of this makes sense unless you're the kind of person who treats the political spectrum as... like a natural law it's the Electro-magnetic spectrum.

I think commonly that statement is used to defuse the claims of "SOCIALISM OMGZ ELEVENTY!1!" That's how I view it. More saying, 'If you think America is socialist, but don't call the UK, Germany, Australia, etc. socialist, then you have no idea what you're talking about. Your furthest left is our center."

 

[JoeMorgue]

And my point is "Is this a good idea or not?" should be able to rise above all of that because at the end of the day if that's not the question we're asking what's the point?

The fact the the Right has a kneejerk response to socialism doesn't matter all that much to me.

"The other side is being dramatic so either I'm right or let's just burn the whole system to the ground" is the Trumper's mentality and I'm not a fan.

And I have my own issues with the "But it works in Europe..." argument.

 

[Sideroxylon]

You can shout "no true Marxist" all you want to, but this is the only kind that actually occurs in the real world.

To label Sanders in this way without addressing his clear and repeated policy statements is lazy at best or political malice.

 

[theprestige]

It would be a lot better if we could just discuss ideas and whether or not they are good for the country instead of acting like the only thing worth doing is assigning economic, social, and political labels that were codified for 18th Century Europe.

I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you for the wake-up call.

It would also be better if Jimi Hendrix appeared on TV, saying he and John Lennon faked their deaths, and were going on tour together and that's about as likely to happen.

This, on the other hand, is just bananas. "Everything sucks so bad and there's no hope of changing it."

Whether or not Bernie Sander's plans for America are good or not is a valid point of discussion. Whether or not Charles Fourier or Karl Marx would define it as socialism is not.

Enh. They're both valid. The former is probably more on topic than the latter, though.

 

[SezMe]

And my point is "Is this a good idea or not?" should be able to rise above all of that because at the end of the day if that's not the question we're asking what's the point?

You're right, except for human beings.

Most people don't have the time or resources or intellectual muscles to explore such topics in depth in order to have a discussion about the basic issues. That's why words are argued about instead of concepts. Yes, you're right, words are a piss-poor substitute but, hey, we're just human.

It's the same reason why so much is made of saluting the flag or some athlete crouching on one knee during the national anthem. We gives a flying ****? The answer is everyone who thinks believes we should honor "the flag" rather than taking a position of what the flag should stand for.

**dismounts high horse**

 

[Aridas]

You can shout "no true Marxist" all you want to, but this is the only kind that actually occurs in the real world.

I can't say that I'm surprised that you would try to defend totalitarianism. Either way, as I pointed out earlier, Marxism has plenty that can be poked at and so does the right-wing perversion of it that you want to conflate with it. The problems of the two have remarkably little overlap, though, which makes it particularly dishonest to try to conflate them and attack one with the problems that are displayed by the other.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Universal healthcare is scary stuff.

 

[Brainster]

Dems start to panic over Sanders:

A group of loosely affiliated Democratic operatives have been in discussions about putting together an effort to attack Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) should he end up winning next week’s Iowa caucus and, potentially, the New Hampshire primary a week later.

The talks, which two sources described to The Daily Beast, are in their nascent stages, and have already hit a snag. Big money Democrats have shown reluctance at funding such an effort, which could consist of ads attacking Sanders, and institutions associated with Democratic politics have largely shied away from being part of any campaign that goes after the senator, either out of fear over the backlash or growing acceptance at the prospect of him becoming the party’s nominee.

The problem is that the other candidates don't want to piss off Bernie's supporters by attacking him directly. Hillary had the same concerns in 2016. While she needed to defeat Bernie, she also wanted to get his supporters to back her in the general.

Expect the media surrogates for the other candidates to start printing and airing nasty stories about the Bernie Bros. It's a way of going after Bernie without quite going after him personally.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And my point is "Is this a good idea or not?" should be able to rise above all of that because at the end of the day if that's not the question we're asking what's the point?

The fact the the Right has a kneejerk response to socialism doesn't matter all that much to me.

"The other side is being dramatic so either I'm right or let's just burn the whole system to the ground" is the Trumper's mentality and I'm not a fan.

And I have my own issues with the "But it works in Europe..." argument.

Sure. Even in the context of our own country there is a history of politics existing well to the left of where we are, but still falling well short of Socialism. Returning to an era of big government spending, higher taxes on the wealthy, higher union membership and power, etc would not be socialism.

The right likes to throw around boogieman terms because they know that the ideas that someone like Sanders has have the potential for widespread appeal.

 

[Tero]

It's probably worth pointing out that this country could take a massive leap to the left and still be well within the bounds of free-market democracy. Bernie only seems extreme because this country has had multiple decades of rule by two parties that were either far-right or center-right.

This sort of thing is also going on in European countries. They set up healthcare and transportation and the public got used to having services. The next step was to set up contractors to do all this stuff, instead of government employees. In many cases it ended up costing tax payers more. Contractors claimed "more reliable services." In the case of the smaller countries, mining rights and mines were auctioned off to foreign giants.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sanders Tweets:

This country was built by immigrants. The American people want comprehensive, humane immigration reform.

We must reverse these Trump programs which are designed to demonize and hurt those who are the most vulnerable of all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Universal healthcare is scary stuff.

Spend 10 minutes in a VA Office and it sure does.