And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[Madiel]

Actually, what is socialism? I was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania whose society was officially labelled as "developped socialist society" so socialism as I experienced it was characterized by:

- one-party state (actually, there was no differenece between the Party and the State: most governmental agencies were officially described as "state-and-party entity")

- complete government control over the completely state-run economy, absolutely no privately-owned businesses whatever

- heavy censorship and suppression of any ideas not in line with the official ideology

- omnipresent, omnipotent and universally feared secret police with an extensive network of informers (after 1989 there were numerous cases in which people discovered they had been reported by some of their closest friends and relatives)

- shameless cult of personality of the Party leader and his wife

- relentless anti-Western propaganda by the state-run newspapers, radio and TV stations.

- in the last few years of the regime, chronic and dramatic shortages of pretty much anything, from bread, meat and potatoes to toilet paper and deodorants, plus frequent power, gas and heating outages.

- etc etc etc along the same lines.

This is socialism for me, an odious regime which trampled under foot the common people and their liberty, impoverished, indoctrinated, persecuted them and made them unhappy while securing a life of political and economical privileges for the party nomenklatura, the secret police members and their minions.

Now, I'm sure your mileage --- and Bernie's --- might vary. So, what is socialism, actually?

Well this is precisely my point. There are people who would slap the label "socialist" on Norway. Which AFAIK doesn't look much like this at all. Any label that is being simultaneously used to describe a country that regularly gets marked as one of the best places in the world to live and the horrible mess that was Ceausescu's Romania is not a very helpful label.

And even then, there are plenty of countries on the political spectrum between the USA and Norway, ie countries with a lot fewer government-run things than Norway has. I'm pretty sure I live in one of them. But to some Americans there are things about Australia that are horrible socialism to be avoided.

[Florestan]

Well this is precisely my point. There are people who would slap the label "socialist" on Norway. Which AFAIK doesn't look much like this at all. Any label that is being simultaneously used to describe a country that regularly gets marked as one of the best places in the world to live and the horrible mess that was Ceausescu's Romania is not a very helpful label.

And even then, there are plenty of countries on the political spectrum between the USA and Norway, ie countries with a lot fewer government-run things than Norway has. I'm pretty sure I live in one of them. But to some Americans there are things about Australia that are horrible socialism to be avoided.

And the same actually applies to capitalism as well. If both Australia and Russia are capitalist countries then it's just an empty word.

[71 dB]

Actually, what is socialism?

I think in the US it is a "scary" word to fearmonger about changes that would benefit the regular people and unrig the oligarchy. It has been a word to keep people in line. For decades it worked and the oligarchs ruled the US, but the younger generation is different, immune to this scare, because they have access to information outside the corporate media to learn about the nyances about socialism and capitalism. They are struggling and justly asking if the (crony) capitalism is working for them at all.

I was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania whose society was officially labelled as "developped socialist society" so socialism as I experienced it was characterized by:

Romania's socialism was authoritarian in nature. Bernie is after completely different kind of "socialism", social democracy, which is actually a variation of capitalism. There is no pure capitalism or sosialism in the world, only mixed economies. The US has a lot of socialistic elements such as the fire department and subsidies to fossil fuel companies. It's just that the system in the US is rigged because of utter corruption for the top 1 % so that for most people things are far from optimal. The US is quite authoritarian country in practice even if on the paper it's supposed to be a striving democracy and beacon of freedom. The words "socialism" and "capitalism" are just labels and countries in the world aren't 100 % socialistic or 100 % capitalistic. Countries have their own mixture of socialism and capitalism. Bernie talks about countries such as Denmark, because he looks out for models that have proven to be the most successful. 

- one-party state (actually, there was no differenece between the Party and the State: most governmental agencies were officially described as "state-and-party entity")

The US has practically only two parties. That's better than one, but far from what social democratic countries have, typically about ten. Bernie's agenda is to make the US more democratic, remove corruption and so on making it easier for additional parties to gain political power.

- complete government control over the completely state-run economy, absolutely no privately-owned businesses whatever

Bernie isn't attacking private ownership. Under Bernie's precidency Amazon, Apple and so on will be just as privately owned businesses as they are now. Just as in Denmark Lego is a privately held company.

- heavy censorship and suppression of any ideas not in line with the official ideology

The US has some censorship, althou probably not as bad as Romania had.

-- omnipresent, omnipotent and universally feared secret police with an extensive network of informers (after 1989 there were numerous cases in which people discovered they had been reported by some of their closest friends and relatives)

The US has NSA spying on people.

- shameless cult of personality of the Party leader and his wife

The US has the cult of Trump and the overall sentiment of billionaires being smarter than other people.

- relentless anti-Western propaganda by the state-run newspapers, radio and TV stations.

The US has anti-socialism propaganda that tries to equate Denmark's social democracy to the socialism in Venezuela. Whereas in Romania the media was ran by the state, in the US it is run by the oligarchs.

- in the last few years of the regime, chronic and dramatic shortages of pretty much anything, from bread, meat and potatoes to toilet paper and deodorants, plus frequent power, gas and heating outages.

Maybe not as bad, but for the richest country in the World, the US has a pretty bad infractructure causing even third world problems and millions of people don't have access to healthcare.

This is socialism for me, an odious regime which trampled under foot the common people and their liberty, impoverished, indoctrinated, persecuted them and made them unhappy while securing a life of political and economical privileges for the party nomenklatura, the secret police members and their minions.

Yes, socialistic countries like Romania have sufferered from the kind of problems you are describing, but Bernie's social democracy is totally different. He isn't talking about Romania. He is talking about Denmark. How much do these things apply to Denmark? As a matter of fact they apply more to the US than Denmark! As far as I know Denmark has clean drinkable tap water for example, something americans don't have, at least not in Flint, Michigan.

TNow, I'm sure your mileage --- and Bernie's --- might vary. So, what is socialism, actually?

Socialism can be different things and you need to know the nyances. Same applies to capitalism. Both have positive and negative aspects to them. A smart society takes the positive aspects of socialism and capitalism and mix them together. Democracy is an important increadient in this, because it ensures everybody in the society is beingh heard and the system doesn't get rigged, at least not much. Bernie wants to remove corruption and overturn citizen united etc.that made the US an oligarchy. That strenghtens the democracy and leads to better mixture of capitalism and socialism shaping the system to something that works for everyone. Is that so difficult to understand?

[Florestan]

The US has practically only two parties. That's better than one, but far from what social democratic countries have, typically about ten. Bernie's agenda is to make the US more democratic, remove corruption and so on making it easier for additional parties to gain political power.

The US has some censorship, althou probably not as bad as Romania had.

The US has NSA spying on people.

The US has the cult of Trump and the overall sentiment of billionaires being smarter than other people.

The US has anti-socialism propaganda that tries to equate Denmark's social democracy to the socialism in Venezuela. Whereas in Romania the media was ran by the state, in the US it is run by the oligarchs.

Maybe not as bad, but for the richest country in the World, the US has a pretty bad infractructure causing even third world problems and millions of people don't have access to healthcare.

If all that is suppose to mean that the US is even remotely similar to the former Socialist Republic of Romania then you are so far off the mark that I won't even bother with it.

[71 dB]

If all that is suppose to mean that the US is even remotely similar to the former Socialist Republic of Romania then you are so far off the mark that I won't even bother with it.

Please try to understand what I mean. Two completely different countries such as Romania and the US can have similar problems. The US isn't a perfect country. It isn't even the best country in the world. It is flawed just like all other countries in it's own way. Bernie is trying to make the US a better country.

[JBS]

Socialism is essentially the central government making all important economic decisions and intensively regulating all economic activity.  It is therefore implicitly authoritarian, even if the decision making process has elements of democratic input. 

Going through the policy proposals on Bernie's website, I think they match that description fairly well, and therefore it's very accurate to call him a socialist.

Socialism is inherently elitists, because of the centralized decision making.  The corruption 71db complains about would actually increase, for the simple reason that whenever government makes decisions that have an economic impact, the people affected will use their current resources to make sure the decision comes out in a way that benefits them.  So the more government involvement in the economy, the more lobbying and the more "buying" politicians and regulators.  In other words, socialism increases corruption.  It is, at its best, crony capitalism.  At its worst, Communism.

Medicare for All is a good example of this:
You'll notice the Young Turks demand that everyone accept their premise that single payer is the only way to get health care access to everyone, and pretend that everything else is "oligarchy". 
Whereas if implemented, Medicare for All would simply be bureaucrats decreeing what is and what is not acceptable coverage and care for all 130 million Americans, and contracting out the paperwork to a for profit company that will implement all the paperwork in the decision making process.  Exactly what Medicare does now.  And of course that company, being for profit, would be paid at a level that allows its owners to make profits, just like health care

And so on through what Bernie proposes. The problem with the progressive agenda is not the amount of money that needs to be spent to implement it, but the fact that it requires centralized decision making that is effectively insulated from the people it supposedly "benefits".


A lot of the things which feature on Bernie's agenda are now handled at the state and local level, where they are at least partially subject to political pressures from the general public.  Moving them up to the federal level means insulating them from the actual voters and handing  the general decision making process to bureaucrats who are inclined to fit everything into their preferred Procrustean bed.   So it inherently lessens democracy.  And this is one point where "America is so big" is important.   Finland is about the size of Minnesota, IIRC.  So decision making by the national government  of Finland is on the same scale as decision making by one American state.   If you include Russia, Europe has slightly more than twice the total population of the US.  So decision making by the US Government means making decisions for half of Europe.    So nationalizing decision making is much less democratic in the US than in any European country. 

[SimonNZ]

Actually, what is socialism? I was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania

And if you wake up in Pyongyang tomorrow you'll be in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.

[greg]

I think he simply is advocating a form of socialism, which, as we all know, doesn't work, because as Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

I've wondered before if it could work if the US did a couple things like greatly reduce illegal immigration and also cut military spending among other things to increase the power of the social safety net.

[JBS]

.....
The world's most expensive health care without the world's best outcomes (lots of us beat you on life expectancy) plus it's frequently tied to employment which distorts the job market.

......
The most bizarre element of American politics is watching people scream blue murder about fixing some of these things and say that the fixes cannot possibly work, blithely ignoring all the countries where the suggested solutions come from which have better outcomes than you do for the population as a whole. Americans are peculiarly reluctant to adopt ideas from other countries, even when there's hard data to show that those ideas are working.

The form of capitalism that many Americans are so desperate to defend is a form that encapsulates the great American dream of 'making it'. But here's the thing: hardly any of you will actually 'make it'. You end up defending a system that's most unlikely to benefit you personally, because of clinging onto the slight aspirational hope that it will. And you end up rejecting systems that do a little good for a lot of people in favour of systems that do lots of good for only a few people, because you think that 'making it' has to have rewards and people have to be given incentives to drive them forward.

It's all very prosperity gospel.

Most of the problems you mention either exist as the result of well intentioned government programs, or would be made worse by the progressive agenda. 

I left in your reference to health care because there is something that needs to be point out about what you say.

The claim that our systems has high costs and low outcomes relative to other countries is, if not misleading, at least not accurate enough to be useful, because it lumps everything in together--Medicare, private insurance through employers and individual policies, Medicaid and other poverty linked programs, and the people who don't have any insurance.   Effectively, it mixes in four different systems and makes it seem as if the costs and outcomes are uniform through them all.  I have looked and failed to find any statistic that actually breaks out costs and outcomes among the four.  From what is usually called anecdotal evidence and personal experience,  there are important differences.  In terms of outcomes, it seems Medicaid (public insurance for individuals and families who meet the low income/low asset requirements) has the worst outcomes, private insurance the best outcomes.  Medicare, being specifically for seniors, and open to all seniors, should really be left out altogether, since it covers a population which obviously is more prone to illness than the general population, and obviously all of its beneficiaries will die at some point or other.   Geography has an impact:  rural areas have, in general, worse access overall to health care compared to urban areas.

[JBS]

But to some Americans there are things about Australia that are horrible socialism to be avoided.

The most popular Australian bogeyman is your gun control laws.  If I understand them correctly, they are fairly extreme  by American standards.  Progressives love them, moderates pledge that we never will be like that. (And in fact, they wouldn't pass Constitutional muster.)

If I have it correct, to own a firearm, requires a prior permit from the police,  There is a list of officially allowed reasons to issue the permit.  As I understand it, needing a weapon to protect yourself from an immediate threat (for instance, an abusive ex-spouse who is now stalking you) is not on the list of officially allowed reasons.  Is that true?  If it is, it means, from an American POV, Australia does not recognize the right of self defense.

[drogulus]

I've wondered before if it could work if the US did a couple things like greatly reduce illegal immigration and also cut military spending among other things to increase the power of the social safety net.

     Yikes!.....there is no zero sum relationship between the level of military spending and social spending, and there is considerable overlap in that both send income into the private sector that percolates through the whole economy. The notion that we need to insure fewer people to build our next aircraft carrier has no support anywhere. Fiscal expansion deploys resources that aren't presently used until you see the whites of inflation's eyes. The economy usually has idle resources that drag on growth and productivity, else what is "running out of dollars" for?

    So no one should be surprised that you also think that cutting immigration "leaves" more for all of us here. Once against you'll indulge any "shrink to grow" idea out there before you consider "grow to grow" ideas, if you ever get around to that.

     How about this? The most efficient condition of an economy is the deployment of all available resources by mean of the level and targeting of net spending for that purpose. So if we can strengthen the economy in multiple directions within our resource means, there isn't a money argument that says we shouldn't. Maybe another kind of argument says some types of expansion have non-money negative effects that should be avoided. I'm only objecting to "we shouldn't spend for growth because we need to run out of dollars before they run out on their own". That way madness lies.

     Immigration adds important resources. Even the terminally stupid Mulvaney knows this. The "immigrant multiplier" may be in the range of 1.6. I don't know, I can't tell. Ask Mulvaney, he's the expert.

     

[71 dB]

Socialism is essentially the central government making all important economic decisions and intensively regulating all economic activity.  It is therefore implicitly authoritarian, even if the decision making process has elements of democratic input.

Capitalism is essentially the rich making all important economic decisions and not only regulating the economic activity for their own benefit.  It is therefore implicitly authoritarian, even if the decision making process has elements of democratic input.

Yeah, that's oversimplifying things, but so is your statement. How authoritarian is Denmark in your opinion? Do you think Danish people suffer because Danish government regulates the purity of tap water?

Going through the policy proposals on Bernie's website, I think they match that description fairly well, and therefore it's very accurate to call him a socialist.

Again, Bernie's proposals are normal social democratic stuff. Sometimes he calls even himself a socialist, but you need to understand what he means when he says it. He is for socialistic aspects in capitalism where they make sense such as tuition free education or healthcare. So, it's important to understand in what sense he is a socialist and in what sense he is not. When you make that analyse you see he is a social democrat who unfortunately calls himself a democratic socialist, because these DAMN labels are poorly known, but they are JUST LABELS!! If someone wants to make the US similar to Denmark (because Denmarks kicks ass when it comes to quality of living), it's idiotic to claim he wants to make the US like Venezuela! Is it that difficult to be intellectually honest?

Btw, even Venezuela would be doing better if it wasn't for the economic sanctions by the US crushing them. That's not to say Venezuela is a good model for anyone - they have made a lot of mistakes for sure - but their problems aren't 100 % caused by socialism. Intellectually honest people take that into account. Deep inside YOU know that, but you need to justify your stupid simplistic right-wing opinions to yourself.

Socialism is inherently elitists, because of the centralized decision making.

Depends on what kind of socialism we are talking about. Every socialistic country has been different just as every capitalistic country is different. Some more centralized and authoritarian than the others. Sweden in the 70's was perhaps the closest to Karl Marx's ideal society and I'm sure you wouldn't call it elitistic or the decision making centralized. That's because Sweden has been a highly democratic country. Simpletons may want to simplify the world to understand it better, but it's not a sign off intellectual honesty.

The corruption 71db complains about would actually increase, for the simple reason that whenever government makes decisions that have an economic impact, the people affected will use their current resources to make sure the decision comes out in a way that benefits them.  So the more government involvement in the economy, the more lobbying and the more "buying" politicians and regulators.  In other words, socialism increases corruption.  It is, at its best, crony capitalism.  At its worst, Communism.

You forget that Bernie wants to reduce/remove corruption. When the rich can't buy the elections, politicians are more responsible to the voter, the regular people. This means reduced corruption. Corrupt politicians are simply voted out. You also conveniantly forget that companies are greedy actors. Their desicions are made to benefits them. How is that better? Again, how corrupt is Denmark compared to other countries in the world including the US? Your claims are avoid of any empirical evidence so why would anyone take them seriously?

Medicare for All is a good example of this:
You'll notice the Young Turks demand that everyone accept their premise that single payer is the only way to get health care access to everyone, and pretend that everything else is "oligarchy". 
Whereas if implemented, Medicare for All would simply be bureaucrats decreeing what is and what is not acceptable coverage and care for all 130 million Americans, and contracting out the paperwork to a for profit company that will implement all the paperwork in the decision making process.  Exactly what Medicare does now.  And of course that company, being for profit, would be paid at a level that allows its owners to make profits, just like health care

Debating healtcare with you is tiresome af. Theoretically medicare for all may not be the only way to cover everyone, but it is certainly the BEST and most cost effective way backed up with empirical evidence and studies. The reason why we are even debating about this is because the insurance companies and Big Pharma want to protect their MAFIA-like profit model and have bought the MSM to brainwash a lot of people including you to believe stupid lies and smear about single payer healthcare. Luckily the majority of americans aren't as stupid as you and understand how much better medicare for all would be as a healthcare system. Since the single payer is the best model, the other models are compromizes done to serve other interests than providing healthcare to all citizens and that makes them oligarchic in nature, especially when these companies spend millions to misslead the public. You really have some serious mental limitations between your ears not understanding these things despite of me explaining then to you several times. So tiresome! 

A functioning healthcare system is pretty simple: You need help you get help. The more serious your health problem is the quicker you get the help, because everyone can't be given healthcare immediately for resource limitation reasons. Not only is this morally right, but it even benefits the whole society.

Medicare as it is is an underfunded afterthought to "fix" the problems of for profit healtcare. Medicare for all would be expanded version based on medicare, but many ways different, properly funded system. Even as it is medicare is a very popular program and a lot of old people would be in serious trouble without it.

You never answered me what you would lose going from your current healthcare coverage to medicare for all? Isn't it bothering you you can't answer such a simple question? One of your main arguments is medicare for all means worse coverage, but you can't tell how! The truth is your coverage would be the same or better under medicare for all (depends on how good your healthcare plan is), but you would pay less for healthcare even when your taxes would go up. I am on your side here wanting you better healthcare for less money. You may be thoroughly brainwashed and stupid, but you are still a human being and good affordable healthcare is your human right.

And so on through what Bernie proposes. The problem with the progressive agenda is not the amount of money that needs to be spent to implement it, but the fact that it requires centralized decision making that is effectively insulated from the people it supposedly "benefits".

Medicare saves money. We can discuss about how much (different studies have differing answers), but the real question is how is the US going to pay for the current system, the most expensive healthcare system in the World that gives average results comparable to other countries with half of the costs. More important than whether decision making is entralized or not is what are the incentives. For profit healthcare system creates insane incentives (denying care increases profit) and that's the underlying reason why the US healtcare system is so bad and needs to be reformed into a single payer system. If capitalism and for profit philosophy worked with healthcare the US would probably have one of the best healthcare system in the world, but that's not the case. Capitalism can work with healthcare providers as proven by countries such as France and Canada, but the payer need to be centralized, governmental. That's why single payer system.

All the talk about protection against pre-existing conditions is a prime example of the problems with for profit decision making.

A lot of the things which feature on Bernie's agenda are now handled at the state and local level, where they are at least partially subject to political pressures from the general public.  Moving them up to the federal level means insulating them from the actual voters and handing  the general decision making process to bureaucrats who are inclined to fit everything into their preferred Procrustean bed.   So it inherently lessens democracy.  And this is one point where "America is so big" is important.   Finland is about the size of Minnesota, IIRC.  So decision making by the national government  of Finland is on the same scale as decision making by one American state.   If you include Russia, Europe has slightly more than twice the total population of the US.  So decision making by the US Government means making decisions for half of Europe.    So nationalizing decision making is much less democratic in the US than in any European country.

Medicare for all can be mandated so that each State creates it's own single payer system. That solves any problems regarding size as even the biggest States are small compared to such single payer countries as Germany (~80 million people).

[71 dB]

The most popular Australian bogeyman is your gun control laws.  If I understand them correctly, they are fairly extreme  by American standards.  Progressives love them, moderates pledge that we never will be like that. (And in fact, they wouldn't pass Constitutional muster.)

If I have it correct, to own a firearm, requires a prior permit from the police,  There is a list of officially allowed reasons to issue the permit.  As I understand it, needing a weapon to protect yourself from an immediate threat (for instance, an abusive ex-spouse who is now stalking you) is not on the list of officially allowed reasons.  Is that true?  If it is, it means, from an American POV, Australia does not recognize the right of self defense.

Wait until you learn about the gun laws in Japan. 

Only about a dozen people die every year in Japan because of guns, a country of 130 million people and intense video gaming culture. It's not the video games or violent movies. It's the guns.

[greg]

Wait until you learn about the gun laws in Japan. 

Only about a dozen people die every year in Japan because of guns, a country of 130 million people and intense video gaming culture. It's not the video games or violent movies. It's the guns.

It's also the culture somewhat.

Crime overall is way less. Homelessness in Japan is so low that it's qualifies as a culture shock if you are from the US. Unemployment is very low.

Illegal drugs are almost nonexistent, so black markets and gangs are also almost nonexistent.

[71 dB]

It's also the culture somewhat.

Crime overall is way less. Homelessness in Japan is so low that it's qualifies as a culture shock if you are from the US. Unemployment is very low.

Illegal drugs are almost nonexistent, so black markets and gangs are also almost nonexistent.

Excuses, excuses. 9 out of 10 Americans want common sense gun regulation, even members of NRA because they don't want their kids slaughtered in school. However, the gun manufacturers have brided the leaders of NRA to buy the whole Republican party so all gun law reforms are blocked. Bernie's presidency changes that and gun laws will be written by Americans, not NRA/gun manufacturers.

[Madiel]

By complete coincidence I just was introduced to a detailed explanation of how the American right came to use the word 'socialism' to mean something completely different to what the term means in the rest of the world.

Apparently it started in 1871 by describing giving black men the vote as socialism.

[71 dB]

96 % of Nevada precincts reporting and the delegates seems to go like this:

Sanders 24, Biden 9 and Buttigieg 3.

Bernie really benefitted from the "caucus math" as he got 2/3 of the 36 delegates for 47 % of C.C.D.s and about 40 % of second alignment votes...

[JBS]

Excuses, excuses. 9 out of 10 Americans want common sense gun regulation, even members of NRA because they don't want their kids slaughtered in school. However, the gun manufacturers have brided the leaders of NRA to buy the whole Republican party so all gun law reforms are blocked. Bernie's presidency changes that and gun laws will be written by Americans, not NRA/gun manufacturers.

Bernie may get around the NRA. But he can't get around the Second Amendment.

[71 dB]

By complete coincidence I just was introduced to a detailed explanation of how the American right came to use the word 'socialism' to mean something completely different to what the term means in the rest of the world.

Apparently it started in 1871 by describing giving black men the vote as socialism.

Well, Bernie is for black men (and women) to vote so he is clearly a socialist!   

Interesting, but in no way surprising piece of information I didn't know. 

[JBS]

By complete coincidence I just was introduced to a detailed explanation of how the American right came to use the word 'socialism' to mean something completely different to what the term means in the rest of the world.

Apparently it started in 1871 by describing giving black men the vote as socialism.

In 1871 that counted as a radical idea, so  I wouldn't be surprised at that.

BTW, is my understanding of Australia's gun laws correct? [In the comment time stamped at 2:20]