Log in

View Full Version : Socialist Successes



Klaatu
22nd April 2009, 17:54
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont
Posted April 22, 2009 | 10:47 AM (EST)

Socialist Successes

Representative Spencer Bachus is one of the only people I know from Alabama. I bet I'm the only
socialist he knows. I'm certainly the only one the congressman from Birmingham could name after
darkly claiming that there are 17 socialists lurking in the House of Representatives.

I doubt that there are any other socialists, let alone 17 more, in all of the Congress. I also respectfully
doubt that Spencer Bachus understands much about democratic socialism. I hope this is an opportunity
to shed some light on a viewpoint that deserves more attention throughout America and in our capital.

At its best, Washington brings people like us together to fight for our principles and work things out
for the good of the country. Spencer and I used to serve together on the House Financial Services
Committee. I don't mean to hurt him back home, but the truth is that he even cosponsored an
amendment of mine once on credit card ripoffs.

At its worst, Washington is a place where name-calling partisan politics too often trumps policy.
A standard refrain in John McCain's presidential stump speeches last fall was a claim that Barack
Obama's Senate voting record was more liberal than Senate's only socialist, yours truly. That is
nonsense on several levels. Even as political hyperbole, the attack didn't work out all that well for
my colleague from Arizona.

Still, branding someone as a socialist has become the slur du jour by leading lights of the American
right from Newt Gingrich to Rush Limbaugh. Some, like Mike Huckabee, intentionally blur the
differences between socialism and communism, between democracy and totalitarianism. "Lenin and
Stalin would love this stuff," Huckabee told last winter's gathering of the Conservative Political
Action Conference.

If we could get beyond such nonsense, I think this country could use a good debate about what goes
on here compared to places with a long social-democratic tradition like Sweden, Norway and Finland,
where, by and large, the middle class has a far higher standard of living than we do.

I was honored last year to show Ambassador Pekka Lintu of Finland around my home state of Vermont.
There was standing-room only at a town meeting where people came to hear more about one of the
world's most successful economic and social models.

And what we learned impressed us. Finland is a country which provides high-quality health care to all
of its people with virtually no out-of-pocket expense; where parents and their young children receive
free excellent childcare and/or parental leave benefits which dwarf what our nation provides; where
college and graduate education is free to students and where children in the public school system
often record the highest results in international tests. In Finland, where 80 percent of workers belong
to unions, all employees enjoy at least 30 days paid vacation and the gap between the rich and poor
is far more equitable than in the United States.

One reason there was so much interest in the Finnish model was that even before Wall Street greed
drove the world economy into a deep recession, more and more Americans were wondering why the
very rich were becoming richer while our economy failed our working families. They wanted to know
why the middle class was shrinking, poverty was increasing and the United States was the only major
country without a national health care program.

Despite all the rhetoric about "family values," workers in the United States now work the longest
hours of any people in a major country. Our health care system is disintegrating. At last count,
47 million Americans had no health insurance while we spend twice as much per capita on health care
as any other nation.

We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. Our childcare system is
totally inadequate. Too many of our kids drop out of school, and college is increasingly unaffordable.
One of the results of how we neglect many of our children is that we end up with more people in jails
and prisons than any other country on earth. There is a correlation between the highest rate of
childhood poverty and the highest rate of incarceration.

Let's be clear. Finland is no utopia. Not so many years ago, it experienced a severe economic downturn.
Its economy today is not immune to what is happening in the rest of the world. There also are, to be
sure, important differences between the United States and Finland - a small country with a population
of only 5.2 million people. Finland has a very homogenous population. We are extremely diverse.
Finland is the size of Montana. We stretch 3,000 miles from coast to coast.

Despite the differences, there are important similarities. Both countries share many of the same
aspirations for their people. When one thinks about the long march of human history, it is no small
thing that democratic countries like Finland exist that operate under egalitarian principles, which
have virtually abolished poverty, which provide almost-free, quality health care to all their people,
and provide free, high-quality education from child care to graduate school.

Whether we live in Burlington, Vt. or Birmingham, Ala., we should be prepared to study and learn
from the successes of social-democratic countries. Name-calling and scare tactics just won't do.

source
The Huffington Post

Marx22
22nd April 2009, 18:44
Sanders is completely right; Washington has to take time at look at other nations and their democracies. The US likes to tout how they are the defender of democracy but often times when socialist parties come into power in certain countries, their view on democratic principles cease to exist and as Sanders said resort to scare tactics. Countries that tend to get better test scores than the US, better health care treatment than the US, and their citizens tend to live longer than US citizens are often socialist or have socialist/communist parties leading their legislature. Yes our populations greatly differ but that the US should not be immune from learning from outside influences.

Capitalists and conservatives like to keep the wealth where it is at, the top. They want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer while they like to come up with fancy economic theories like "trickle-down economics" just so they can justify slashing unions and pampering to rich citizens who a lot of them have not probably worked a day in their lifes.

STJ
22nd April 2009, 19:50
Sanders is right.

JimmyJazz
22nd April 2009, 20:05
Sanders is right.

fire up the bumper sticker machines

GPDP
22nd April 2009, 22:47
Let's be clear, though. Sanders is not a socialist in the way we define socialism. He's pretty much a standard-fare social-democrat. Far to the left of the right-of-center liberal Democrat yahoos that pass for "leftists" in this damn-near-fascist country, yes, but nevertheless, despite his insistence on labeling himself a socialist, he is no such thing, unless he has been calling for the working class to seize the means of production.

Also telling is the following line:


Some, like Mike Huckabee, intentionally blur the
differences between socialism and communism, between democracy and totalitarianism.

Basically, socialism = democracy, while communism = totalitarianism. Do any of you know any actual socialist that would say something like this and mean it? Socialism IS communism, which, at the same time, IS democracy. Such distinctions reek of blindly accepting Cold War era propaganda of the evils of despotic Soviet "communism," and taking them at face value. If he wants to disassociate himself from the legacy of the USSR, then that is his pejorative, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it still does not make him a socialist, especially if he's going to be disassociating socialism from communism, and dishonestly associating the later with despotism and totalitarianism.

All that aside, the article is pretty much spot on.

STJ
22nd April 2009, 23:15
fire up the bumper sticker machines
And the cake.

Klaatu
23rd April 2009, 02:00
"GPDP"

But socialism and communism can be thought of as economic systems too. We are thinking of these
as political systems, (which they can be) but actually socialism is, strictly speaking, the complete public
ownership of goods and services. For example, the roads and highway system are publicly-owned, as
are the public school system and town police and fire depts. This is more economic than it is political.
Communism is actually an economic system where, again, everything is publicly owned, but goes one step
further, to say that everyone shares equally in wealth (something socialism does not necessarily require.)
Good examples of communism are Buddhist monks living in a monastery, or Catholic nuns living in a convent.
_________________________________________

"Socialist"

Do you like my morphing of "free market economy" into "free marxist economy?" (Or am I being paradoxical?)

Klaatu
23rd April 2009, 07:29
Thanks. I thought I might have said something stupid and contradictory. I'm not as much of an expert
on Marxism as some of the folks here are, having been fed a lifetime of capitalism propaganda. Come to
think of it, just why do they (whoever "they" are) have to spoon-feed the masses on the "positive"
aspects of capitalism? I mean, if that system is so good, why do they have to push, push, push?
Methinks that the system would stand on it's own merits, if it were so great. But instead we have the
likes of the conservative party in this country trying to demonize socialism, as though it were bad or
something. I can tell you this: folks like radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, et al, have helped push
my political thinking way to the left. They have exposed the dark side of conservatism by their advocacy
of torture, warmongering, massive tax cutting for the wealthy, and so on... (Thanks, Rush)

BTW I know this may sound crazy, but I have decided that the "Antichrist" that people talk about is actually
(believe it or not) good 'ol capitalism itself. Beware of the Capitalist Antichrist. It's coming, and we must
defeat it before it's too late. This is already in fact reaching a crisis stage: consider the failing capitalist
banking system and the menacing control wielded by oil cartels as warning signs, shockwaves, if you will.

(thoughts?)

ZeroNowhere
23rd April 2009, 09:52
Representative Spencer Bachus is one of the only people I know from Alabama. I bet I'm the only socialist he knows.
Pity you're not a socialist, then.


Basically, socialism = democracy, while communism = totalitarianism. Do any of you know any actual socialist that would say something like this and mean it?
To be fair, SPUSA do it. To be accurate, SPUSA is hardly socialist so much as a collection of some socialists and some reformists. Though yes, there is no difference between socialism and communism, and Sanders has nothing to do with them.


The US likes to tout how they are the defender of democracy but often times when socialist parties come into power in certain countries, their view on democratic principles cease to exist and as Sanders said resort to scare tactics.
That's bullshit. They've never done that, or, if they have, it's hardly a common occurrence. Though I suppose that their help with the Pinochet coup would count as overthrowing a 'socialist' government by Sanders' definition.


One reason there was so much interest in the Finnish model was that even before Wall Street greed drove the world economy into a deep recession
Oh, please. Try harder, kthx.


I was honored last year to show Ambassador Pekka Lintu of Finland around my home state of Vermont. There was standing-room only at a town meeting where people came to hear more about one of the world's most successful economic and social models.
"Hey, guys, I'm a reformist!"


Too many of our kids drop out of school, and college is increasingly unaffordable.
Oh, come on, cut the bullshit. How about, "Too few of our kids drop out of school, and capitalism makes it impossible for most of them to get the most out of getting the fuck out, and resigns many to having to work minimum wage jobs after dropping out to support their family, meaning that they can't get an education either way. Fuck capitalism."


free, high-quality education from child care to graduate school.
Bullshit. Firstly, it ain't free if somebody's paying for it. Secondly, it certainly isn't free in the sense of 'free speech'. Thirdly, the second point resigns Sanders' second adjective to falsehood.

Klaatu
23rd April 2009, 18:12
I am surprised that the U.S. conservative party has not (yet) tried to label the unions as "communists."

Jack
24th April 2009, 02:00
I am surprised that the U.S. conservative party has not (yet) tried to label the unions as "communists."

You haven't payed much attention ot Republicans than.

Revy
24th April 2009, 02:07
Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. He is a social democrat.

Link
(http://berniesanderssucks.wordpress.com/)

BIG BROTHER
24th April 2009, 02:58
Yep the guy is a Social-Democrat, and I don't think decadent capitalism can afford to give more concessions to workers in order to implement any real sort of Democratic socialism...

Klaatu
24th April 2009, 03:41
What is the difference between "social democrat" and "socialist?"

ZeroNowhere
24th April 2009, 10:52
Yep the guy is a Social-Democrat, and I don't think decadent capitalism can afford to give more concessions to workers in order to implement any real sort of Democratic socialism...
Oh, please, we don't oppose reformism because reforms are 'impossible'. They're perfectly possible. They're also merely sophisticated means of reaction. "Reformism was a false tactic, which weakened the working class, not only in crises but also in prosperity."


Sanders is right.
That he is.


I am surprised that the U.S. conservative party has not (yet) tried to label the unions as "communists."
That would be (was?) hilarious.

NecroCommie
24th April 2009, 12:55
Oh, please... This entire article, while being better than supporting capitalism, is utter reformist crap. If one uses Finland as an example, surely they should point out the utter fallcies of reformist politics. The truth is, our welfare state is going down FAST. Why? Well, capitalism was never truly abolished.

Even better example of socialist politics would be Sweden. While Sweden too is social democrat, Sweden has even smaller gap between the rich and the "poor". Sure, the socialist parts are good, way better than what capitalism has ever done, they are still doomed to failure. For example, progressive taxation is very strong, diminishing radically the social inequalities. However, it is only diminishing. Why diminish, when you can abolish all injustice by removing the entire monetary system? Why endanger the rather good system by keeping the basics of capitalism, when one could secure revolution by removing all the last vestiges of capitalism.

ZeroNowhere
24th April 2009, 13:19
Sure, the socialist parts are good, way better than what capitalism has ever done, they are still doomed to failure.
There are no 'socialist parts'. 'Progressive' taxation is not 'socialist', it's a reform of capitalism. Sweden is capitalist, and thus in no way socialist, the two are mutually exclusive.

NecroCommie
24th April 2009, 13:53
OK, I meant "socialist" as in social democrat. Wrong choice of words, I admit.