Bernie 2020 - Keith 2017

[Herrebrugh]

Not really. Social democracy is mostly concerned about improving the market system of distribution, not supplanting it.

You may never have encountered one, but I'd politely suggest that might suggest that this says more about the socialists near you than the ideology as a whole. I stress that it's only transitional
In communist thought.

I'll happily provide one though it will have to wait until I get back home (circa 30 mins).

It advocates adopting nearly all Socialist policies short of completely abolishing the market system and going full Commie. That is borderline Socialist.

Regardless, I will await your reply.

What "socialist policies"?

[Sanctissima]

Both still advocate Communism (or something almost identical to it) as the end-goal. The only difference is the suggested means of achieving it.

Uh, no they don't. Especially considering communism wasn't even a thing until after Owen. Marxism didn't even exist yet.

Marx isn't the end-all be-all of Communism, y'know. Ideologies with nearly identical ideas and objectives have existed since as early as Zoroastrian Persia.

[USS Monitor]

Well, as weird as I may sound, I think Kanye West might get a bit of Bernie's crowd.

West talked about how he cares about humanity, not politics, so he might steal the more leftist bit of Sanders' supporters, and some from the Greens, too.

That's not enough to win, and Kanye has no relevant experience.

[Herrebrugh]

Well, as weird as I may sound, I think Kanye West might get a bit of Bernie's crowd.

West talked about how he cares about humanity, not politics, so he might steal the more leftist bit of Sanders' supporters, and some from the Greens, too.

That's not enough to win, and Kanye has no relevant experience.

Donald Trump won, why can't Kanye West? (I'm not even kidding...)

[Victorious Decepticons]

The Federal Minimum wage is $5.15

You're showing your age. I will now show mine by admitting to remembering when it was $5.15 and that I know you didn't just pull that figure completely out of your ass. However, it has gone up since then, as other posters have already noted.

[Idzequitch]

Well, as weird as I may sound, I think Kanye West might get a bit of Bernie's crowd.

West talked about how he cares about humanity, not politics, so he might steal the more leftist bit of Sanders' supporters, and some from the Greens, too.

That's not enough to win, and Kanye has no relevant experience.

Neither did Trump.

[Sanctissima]

It advocates adopting nearly all Socialist policies short of completely abolishing the market system and going full Commie. That is borderline Socialist.

Regardless, I will await your reply.

What "socialist policies"?

The whole anti-rich thing.

Extreme levels of taxation and an obsession with achieving equality through social policies might not be a strictly Socialist approach, but it's by no means highly dissimilar from it.

[Herrebrugh]

What "socialist policies"?

The whole anti-rich thing.

Extreme levels of taxation and an obsession with achieving equality through social policies might not be a strictly Socialist approach, but it's by no means highly dissimilar from it.

It's very dissimilar, considering socialism is about who owns the workplace. You're talking about reforming capitalism; that's social democracy.

[Dooom35796821595]

What "socialist policies"?

The whole anti-rich thing.

Extreme levels of taxation and an obsession with achieving equality through social policies might not be a strictly Socialist approach, but it's by no means highly dissimilar from it.

I have to ask, what do you consider to be an 'extreme' level of tax?

[Ratateague]

What "socialist policies"?

The whole anti-rich thing.

Extreme levels of taxation and an obsession with achieving equality through social policies might not be a strictly Socialist approach, but it's by no means highly dissimilar from it.

That's not socialism, that's basic populism. Hell, you can implement all of what you advocated by nationalizing the economy instead of socializing it. The difference being that the former is not explicitly left-wing.

[Askietic]

Not really. Social democracy is mostly concerned about improving the market system of distribution, not supplanting it.

You may never have encountered one, but I'd politely suggest that might suggest that this says more about the socialists near you than the ideology as a whole. I stress that it's only transitional
In communist thought.

I'll happily provide one though it will have to wait until I get back home (circa 30 mins).

It advocates adopting nearly all Socialist policies short of completely abolishing the market system and going full Commie. That is borderline Socialist.

Regardless, I will await your reply.

Those calling themselves democratic socialists in the USA are just social democrats who want to keep capitalism going on with social reforms.

Historically, social democrats in Russia were people that wanted to remove capitalism progressively, but after the Soviet Union social democrats were just revisionists; followers of Bernstein who didn't want to abolish capitalism but to apply reforms to it. So we have reformists in Europe and the US calling themselves socialists. For example, all the socialist international: http://www.socialistinternational.org/

They are just in search of "human capitalism", welfare capitalism; but they're all imperialists.

The political language of the US is different from Europe. In the US they call ultra capitalistic liberals "libertarians", they call progressives "liberals" and social democrats "democratic socialists".

[Sanctissima]

The whole anti-rich thing.

Extreme levels of taxation and an obsession with achieving equality through social policies might not be a strictly Socialist approach, but it's by no means highly dissimilar from it.

It's very dissimilar, considering socialism is about who owns the workplace. You're talking about reforming capitalism; that's social democracy.

Reforming it to a point where it's just shy of being abolished.

Like I said, the line is very thin.

[Sanctissima]

The whole anti-rich thing.

Extreme levels of taxation and an obsession with achieving equality through social policies might not be a strictly Socialist approach, but it's by no means highly dissimilar from it.

I have to ask, what do you consider to be an 'extreme' level of tax?

Anything above 50%.

[Herrebrugh]

It's very dissimilar, considering socialism is about who owns the workplace. You're talking about reforming capitalism; that's social democracy.

Reforming it to a point where it's just shy of being abolished.

Like I said, the line is very thin.

... What the hell do taxes have to do with who owns the workplace?

[Sanctissima]

The whole anti-rich thing.

Extreme levels of taxation and an obsession with achieving equality through social policies might not be a strictly Socialist approach, but it's by no means highly dissimilar from it.

That's not socialism, that's basic populism. Hell, you can implement all of what you advocated by nationalizing the economy instead of socializing it. The difference being that the former is not explicitly left-wing.

Nationalization and Socialization are functionally the same. The only difference is the naming conventions.

[Ratateague]

That's not socialism, that's basic populism. Hell, you can implement all of what you advocated by nationalizing the economy instead of socializing it. The difference being that the former is not explicitly left-wing.

Nationalization and Socialization are functionally the same. The only difference is the naming conventions.

Okay, it's good to know that Anarcho-syndicalism is functionally the same as Fascism

[Dooom35796821595]

I have to ask, what do you consider to be an 'extreme' level of tax?

Anything above 50%.

Ok then. Although I wouldn't like VAT to go above 25%.

[Crylante]

He's one of the few American politicians I like. I was so annoyed he didn't win the primary.

But, I don't think he wants to run for office anymore, as he considers himself too old.

[Sanctissima]

Reforming it to a point where it's just shy of being abolished.

Like I said, the line is very thin.

... What the hell do taxes have to do with who owns the workplace?

Decreased income for the rich, lowered rich-poor divide, state-owned companies, etc.

Nationalization and Socialization are functionally the same. The only difference is the naming conventions.

Okay, it's good to know that Anarcho-syndicalism is functionally the same as Fascism

Since when has it actually been put into practice?

Actual socialization, like how it was done in the USSR and Maoist China, are functionally the same.

[Crockerland]

The worst candidate of 2016, no reason for him to run again.

[USS Monitor]

That's not enough to win, and Kanye has no relevant experience.

Donald Trump won, why can't Kanye West? (I'm not even kidding...)

1. He doesn't have the Russians on his side.

2. The people who want Trump out aren't the people that like voting for vapid and incompetent media personalities.

3. There are likely to be some people who see the mess Trump is making and conclude that we need to get back to more normal politicians, even if they didn't see it that way in 2016.

4. He's not white. To get elected as a person of color or as a left-of-center candidate, you're probably going to be relying on a lot of votes from educated whites. Educated voters are less likely to be comfortable with a candidate that has no political background.

[Herrebrugh]

... What the hell do taxes have to do with who owns the workplace?

Decreased income for the rich, lowered rich-poor divide, state-owned companies, etc.

You'll find that socialists don't advocate for state ownership of the means of production (though some may support it transitionally) because the fundamental relationship of employer and employed stays in place. You'll also find that many socialists (communists and anarchists) support the state being smashed altogether.

That's incidentally also why it's silly to call nationalisation and socialisation the same.

[Ratateague]

... What the hell do taxes have to do with who owns the workplace?

Decreased income for the rich, lowered rich-poor divide, state-owned companies, etc.

Okay, it's good to know that Anarcho-syndicalism is functionally the same as Fascism

Since when has it actually been put into practice?

Actual socialization, like how it was done in the USSR and Maoist China, are functionally the same.

...except they didn't actually socialize. Most socialists you would talk to would dismiss them as a deformed workers' state or State Capitalism.

Anyway, you promised: "If you can provide one as an example, I will relent on this point," but didn't and instead dug yourself further into a hole and now we are really off-topic. Sorry about that everyone~

[Ratateague]

Decreased income for the rich, lowered rich-poor divide, state-owned companies, etc.

You'll find that socialists don't advocate for state ownership of the means of production (though some may support it transitionally) because the fundamental relationship of employer and employed stays in place. You'll also find that many socialists (communists and anarchists) support the state being smashed altogether.

That's incidentally also why it's silly to call nationalisation and socialisation the same.

Right, because one is an enclosed, isolated movement, and the other is international.

[USS Monitor]

That's not enough to win, and Kanye has no relevant experience.

Neither did Trump.

Trump wasn't relying on Greens plus the left part of Bernie Sanders base. The first half of that post wasn't there just for decoration.

Given how unpopular Clinton was and how close she came to winning anyway, there's no reason to think that what happened with Trump is easily repeatable.