Is Bernie Sanders a Socialist or a Social Democrat ? Are Democratic Socialists Social

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is Bernie Sanders a Socialist or a Social Democrat ? Are Democratic Socialists Socialists or Social Democrats ?

[mikelepore]

Have you ever heard Sanders make a single comment like "We have a need for collective ownership of the means of production"? I have not.

[Bud Struggle]

He's a Democrat. A left of certer Democrat but a Democrat none the less.

[syndicat]

He's not a Democrat. he's an independent. There is an interview with Sanders in Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" in which Moore asks him what socialism is. It's clear from his response that he misidentifies socialism with a social democratic welfare state. so it's clear he's a social-democrat.

[#FF0000]

Socialism's a broad word that can mean literally anything at this point. He might be a socialist, but he is no marxist, which I think is the more important distinction.

[Bud Struggle]

He's not a Democrat. he's an independent. There is an interview with Sanders in Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" in which Moore asks him what socialism is. It's clear from his response that he misidentifies socialism with a social democratic welfare state. so it's clear he's a social-democrat.

98% of his votes are with the Democrats. He cacuses with the Democrats. The Democrats don't support anyone that runs against him. He can call himself whatever he wants--it is his actions that count.

[trivas7]

Socialism's a broad word that can mean literally anything at this point.
It's a kind of semantic slop that allows the average American to hate communism/socialism. I deny that socialism is compatible w/ Stalinist totalitarianism; socialism doesn't mean just anything. Lenin didn't help by distinguishing socialism as the "lower form"/ "transitional phase" into communism.

[Ocean Seal]

He's not a Democrat. he's an independent. There is an interview with Sanders in Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" in which Moore asks him what socialism is. It's clear from his response that he misidentifies socialism with a social democratic welfare state. so it's clear he's a social-democrat.
I saw this too and it showed his European welfare state character. For some time I thought that we had a real socialist in our Senate :crying:.

[syndicat]

98% of his votes are with the Democrats. He cacuses with the Democrats. The Democrats don't support anyone that runs against him. He can call himself whatever he wants--it is his actions that count.

it would be surprising if it were otherwise. the Dems are not a disciplined party. they are just a loose collection of politicians who run local clientelist networks. The party as a whole is totally under the thumb of big capital, but individual Dems in some areas advocate social-democratic politics, but it's an example of the subservience of American social-democracy to the capitalist regime. his being tied to the Dems is thus not inconsistent with his being a social-dem. after all look at the social-dems in Europe. they've become advocates of neoliberalism to varying degrees, just like the Dems in the USA.

[#FF0000]

It's a kind of semantic slop that allows the average American to hate communism/socialism. I deny that socialism is compatible w/ Stalinist totalitarianism; socialism doesn't mean just anything. Lenin didn't help by distinguishing socialism as the "lower form"/ "transitional phase" into communism.

It has always had a very, very broad meaning though.

[RGacky3]

He's a Socialist in the broad sense of the word, i.e. the people before profits and social control rather than market control.

He's a Democrat but way to the left, I think a social democrat or progressive would be a better distinction.

Its hard to critizise him though, because when it comes to the Senate he's probably one of the best consistantly and most principled, and someone who calls himself a socialist in the Senate and actively fights against corporate interests is someone who has my respect.

[Dimentio]

Is Bernie Sanders a Socialist or a Social Democrat ? Are Democratic Socialists Socialists or Social Democrats ?

"To be a social democrat is to be a democratic socialist" ~ Olof Palme

"To be a social democrat is to be... social, and a democrat" ~ Mona Sahlin

[Agnapostate]

His ideology isn't well-defined, and in the context of service in the U.S. Senate, there's a limited opportunity for it to be. On account of what syndicat said, and on account of the fact that I've heard of him offering ambiguous praise of the Scandinavian welfare states, I'd say that he's a social democrat and not a socialist.

[Crux]

Taken in the context of the U.S senate he is pretty far to the left, in some ways that would make him left of many european social democrats as well, but yeah he's still a social democrat (might be called a socialist in a very, very wide definition of the term).
By the way the party backing him is http://www.progressiveparty.org/
And this is his old party by the way, who clearly are socialists: http://www.libertyunionparty.org/

[Agnapostate]

The line between "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" is blurred in the context of U.S. electoral politics because neither is implementable in the short term.

[GreenCommunism]

but then what is democratic socialism anyway, is there revolution after taking power through representative democracy? chavez was elected democratically too.

[syndicat]

the phrase "democratic socialism" only started being used after the Russian revolution. It came about due to the criticism of the old Socialist Parties of Leninists advocating a revolution to dismantle the old state and replace it. The socialists who preferred a parliamentary strategy said they were preferring to use the "democratic" machinery of Western states to come to power, and over time increasingly criticized the Communist regimes as undemocratic. this became increasingly the emphasis of the old non-Communist Socialist Parties as a way to differentiate themselves from the Communists. This is the derivation of the term "democratic socialist" by the organizations that developed it. It's completely tendentious. for one thing, I do not regard the electoral machinery and governmental system of the USA as being authentically democratic because there is no way the people can really control what the government does.

The reason that the line between "social democracy" and "democratic socialist" is slippery is that the old Second International parties over time came increasingly to abandon any goal of a post-capitalist society, and to limit themselves to reforms of capitalism through the parliamentary machinery of their various states. Nowadays many of these parties are fully pro-capitalist neoliberal parties, like the PSOE in Spain, the German social dems, or the UK Labour party.

Now, Sanders is to the left of these neo-liberal European social democrats. but he doesn't talk about actual socialism, even of the old style "democratic socialism" of the SP.

it might be more accurate to say that the neo-liberal euro social dems aren't really even social democratic any more but mere liberals, but the line between social dem and liberal is also sort of hard to pin down.

[RGacky3]

Now, Sanders is to the left of these neo-liberal European social democrats. but he doesn't talk about actual socialism, even of the old style "democratic socialism" of the SP.

it might be more accurate to say that the neo-liberal euro social dems aren't really even social democratic any more but mere liberals, but the line between social dem and liberal is also sort of hard to pin down.

I'd say the line is do the fight for more public democratic control of the economy or less? Many in Europe don't fight for public control, Sanders does however.

[syndicat]

socialism requires social ownership of the means of production and direct worker management. sanders does not advocate these things. regulations of business by the capitalist state do not constitute authentic democratiic popular control because the state itself is not under authentic democratic control and is a hierarchical apparatus alienated from the masses.

[Agnapostate]

More than that, government regulatory apparatus and interventionist policies are an integral means of sustaining macroeconomic stability in the capitalist economy, turning the "state = socialism" fallacy on its head even more.

[RGacky3]

socialism requires social ownership of the means of production and direct worker management. sanders does not advocate these things. regulations of business by the capitalist state do not constitute authentic democratiic popular control because the state itself is not under authentic democratic control and is a hierarchical apparatus alienated from the masses.


I'd say social ownership is'nt the right world, social control is a better description, which entails ownership (ownership is a Capitalist concept however). What Sanders advocates is less important than what he fights for, what he fights for is the State being more democratic and the economy being more democratic.

BTW, the main thing that makes the state undemcoratic is Capitalist control of the economy, now empowering the state is'nt giong to fix that, but Sanders, like many progressives, fight toward a more democratic United States, although we should'nt put our trust in them or think they are the solution, its still a positive thing, weakining corporate power and strengthening democratic power is something we all want.


More than that, government regulatory apparatus and interventionist policies are an integral means of sustaining macroeconomic stability in the capitalist economy, turning the "state = socialism" fallacy on its head even more.

thats true, however, regulation, along with other aspects are not one sided, sometimes, infact many times they work in the favor of the people, many times the other way around, its not a black and white world, we have to look at policies case by case. Sanders has consistently supported policies that are beneficial to the people rather than the corporate interests.

[RGacky3]

One more thing I'd like to point out, calling yourself a Socialist in the United States is a lot lot lot more significant than doing so in Europe, in Europe the word has a moral pull, kind of like the word democracy or freedom, so a lot of European social-democrats will call themselves such so as to pull a demographic of their electorate and roll with the moral pull that word has.

In the United States that word has no moral pull, thats why Bernie Sanders is, in my opinion, far to the left of many politicians in Europe that call themselves social-democrats or socialists, because he's doing it solely on a principled ground, not to get support.

Bernie Sanders has a portrait of Eugene Debs on his wall, a person who was more radical than Both Sanders and the european social-democrats of today.

heres a quote on Bernie Sanders on socialism

"In terms of socialism, I think there is a lot to be learned from Scandinavia and from some of the work, very good work that people have done in Europe. In countries like Finland, Norway, Denmark, poverty has almost been eliminated. All people have healthcare as a right of citizenship. College education is available to all people, regardless of income, virtually free. I have been very aggressive in trying to move to sustainable energy. They have a lot of political participation, high voter turnouts. I think there is a lot to be learned from countries that have created more egalitarian societies than has the United States of America."

So its pretty clear that he's more of a social-democrat and not really a socialist that wants to get rid of Capitalism. But that being said consistantly fights for the working class and against corporate power, so for that we gotta give him credit.

[Agnapostate]

Sanders has consistently supported policies that are beneficial to the people rather than the corporate interests.

And that has no bearing on the point, except perhaps to strengthen it, since programs such as social welfare serve to maintain the psychological loyalty of the working class and prevent adoption of more radical sentiments.

[RGacky3]

And that has no bearing on the point, except perhaps to strengthen it, since programs such as social welfare serve to maintain the psychological loyalty of the working class and prevent adoption of more radical sentiments.

I'm not talking about social welfare, I'm talking about things like the single payer health care, public oversight on corporations, campain finance reform, supporting unions, getting rid of NAFTA.

But if you think the working class suffering more is something posetive then you need to get out into the world a bit, I personally think the opposite will happen, the more socialistic reforms that happen, the more people will demand until they want to get rid of capitalism all together, thats the "slippery slope" that right wingers are so afaid of when it comes to things like the public option.

In my opinion, anything that weakens corporate power and streangthens people power is something I'm for. But you can wait for more and more suffering hoping it will turn into a revolution, but I think its the wrong way to go.

I'm not a reformist, I don't think capitalism can be fixed, but whats most important to me is the well being of people, thats why I'm a socialist, and ultimately waht I want is the capitalist and the statist system to be taken out of the picture.

[Agnapostate]

I'm not talking about social welfare, I'm talking about things like the single payer health care, public oversight on corporations, campain finance reform, supporting unions, getting rid of NAFTA.

But if you think the working class suffering more is something posetive then you need to get out into the world a bit, I personally think the opposite will happen, the more socialistic reforms that happen, the more people will demand until they want to get rid of capitalism all together, thats the "slippery slope" that right wingers are so afaid of when it comes to things like the public option.

In my opinion, anything that weakens corporate power and streangthens people power is something I'm for. But you can wait for more and more suffering hoping it will turn into a revolution, but I think its the wrong way to go.

I'm not a reformist, I don't think capitalism can be fixed, but whats most important to me is the well being of people, thats why I'm a socialist, and ultimately waht I want is the capitalist and the statist system to be taken out of the picture.

Actually, I've made it clear that I promote peaceable transition through nationalization policies in stable first-world democracies. I simply don't pretend that liberal or social democratic policies are "socialistic," because that indicates adherence to the myth that the economy is the golden mean between capitalism and socialism with the "best elements of both," the efficiency of capitalism and the equity of socialism.

Plenty here might support temporary reforms on account of their positive benefits for workers, but we won't pretend that they don't ultimately sustain capitalism in one way or another if they function as efficiency providers.

[x371322]

98% of his votes are with the Democrats. He cacuses with the Democrats.

Yeah, because he should be voting with the other Socialists in the senate. :rolleyes:

There are 2 ways he can go. Who else do you expect him to vote with? Republicans?

[Agnapostate]

There's a point about the value of alliance against mutual enemies in circumstances of limited potentialities in that. Anyone in favor of same-sex marriage, no matter what political tradition they come from, could vote in favor of a legalization referendum. Punching the hole in the ballot is a remarkably simple task in a democratic process with limited provisions, and one that puts a person on one side or the other as a result.

[Raúl Duke]

Bernie Sanders is like a social democrat but people have to stop focusing on the character as if it's something totally unique and see it more as a outcome of social conditions of a location, in this case Vermont. Bernie Sanders represents Vermont, a state that has a tendency towards social democratic like policies. Even if Bernie Sanders didn't exist, someone like him with similar policies would probably still have been sent as Senator of Vermont.