Future of the Bernie- movement in USA?

[Jack of Spades]

I'm asking these simply out of curiosity, I find the Bernie - movement particularly interesting phenomenon during this election cycle.


- Is there a future? Can someone pick up the torch from the old man? Are there other people in US politics who have similar ideas? Will there be?

- What's special about Bernie, or rather, in his policies?

- Is the future of the Democratic party the Bernie way?

- As a Scandinavian, reading what Bernie Sanders says, especially about domestic policy, many things sounds to me like something a mainstream Scandinavian politician would say. Any comments on that observation?

- Bernie was particularly popular with young people. What this says about the future, or about the young generations supporting Bernie and his ideas? Is this an anomaly in US politics, or an indicator that something is changing in the USA?

 

[MorkandMindy]

We should follow policies that work, and the policies Bernie supported can be seen to work in other countries in the same way as our policies are failing here.

Two party politics thwarted Bernie.

The DNC is the same as the RNC and both backed evil genius candidates.

Popular vote got around the RNC and they ended up with a non evil non genius. The DNC has super delegates and bad mouthed Bernie wherever possible so they managed to keep their evil genius as candidate.

Right now most people would back anyone other than Hillary or Trump so if Bernie was still around he would win.

But he left and appointed as his successor probably the worst person to be President possible.

So I gave up on him.

 

[grasping the after wind]

We should follow policies that work, and the policies Bernie supported can be seen to work in other countries in the same way as our policies are failing here.

Two party politics thwarted Bernie.

The DNC is the same as the RNC and both backed evil genius candidates.

Popular vote got around the RNC and they ended up with a non evil non genius. The DNC has super delegates and bad mouthed Bernie wherever possible so they managed to keep their evil genius as candidate.

Right now most people would back anyone other than Hillary or Trump so if Bernie was still around he would win.

But he left and appointed as his successor probably the worst person to be President possible.

So I gave up on him.

Well,he has a beautiful new home. Promoting Socialism can be very profitable I guess. Why do you think that so many politicians that claim to be fighting for the downtrodden masses not only end up quite wealthy in the process but also seem so averse to actually coming into contact with those downtrodden masses when election time is not imminent?

 

[Jack of Spades]

Well,he has a beautiful new home. Promoting Socialism can be very profitable I guess. Why do you think that so many politicians that claim to be fighting for the downtrodden masses not only end up quite wealthy in the process but also seem so averse to actually coming into contact with those downtrodden masses when election time is not imminent?

There is nothing hypocritical with a social democrat (as I would label Bernie) becoming wealthy. Social democracy is about redistributing a portion of wealth, not socializing all of the money.

You're probably mistaking Bernie for a communist, which he is not.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I think it is a question of degree. Bernie didn't grab for himself the amount of money executives of failing banks grabbed, I don't see any actual hypocrisy because he has received a fair amount for a lifetime of good work. He is not a 'leveller'.

I think Bernie bailed at the end because there were some rewards for him if he did and most likely he also required some blackmail as well concerning what would happen if he didn't.

This is a well established line of persuasion, the 'gold or lead' choice.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I think it is a question of degree.

I think Bernie bailed at the end because there were some rewards for him if he did and most likely he also required some blackmail as well concerning what would happen if he didn't.

This is a well established line of persuasion, the 'gold or lead' choice.

If Bernie had rebelled and made a run as an independent after losing the Dem primary, that would have 99% likely resulted in Trump presidency by splitting the Democratic vote.

In sense of political pragmatism, I think he made the right call, choosing realism over idealism. I would assume Bernie agrees in more things with Clinton than he does with Trump.

 

[Skavau]

We should follow policies that work, and the policies Bernie supported can be seen to work in other countries in the same way as our policies are failing here.

Two party politics thwarted Bernie.

The DNC is the same as the RNC and both backed evil genius candidates.

Popular vote got around the RNC and they ended up with a non evil non genius. The DNC has super delegates and bad mouthed Bernie wherever possible so they managed to keep their evil genius as candidate.

Right now most people would back anyone other than Hillary or Trump so if Bernie was still around he would win.

But he left and appointed as his successor probably the worst person to be President possible.

So I gave up on him.

This is so hilariously naive, it's incredible. If Bernie ran he would split the vote between Democrats delivering to the world President Trump.

Also Trump did NOT win the Republican popular vote.

 

[Paulos23]

Bernie has been in politics for a long time. Even without the Super Delegates the votes where not there. But, there was enough votes there for him to influence the Democratic platform and forced Hillary to the left a bit. Not to mention he got many people into the process that had never done it before (like myself).

He found victory in losing like a good politician, and stayed true to his record while doing it. And he may have laid the groundwork for the next Bernie to come along next time. Besides, if the Dems take the Senate, you will be hearing more of him.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Bernie has been in politics for a long time. Even without the Super Delegates the votes where not there. But, there was enough votes there for him to influence the Democratic platform and forced Hillary to the left a bit. Not to mention he got many people into the process that had never done it before (like myself).

He found victory in losing like a good politician, and stayed true to his record while doing it. And he may have laid the groundwork for the next Bernie to come along next time. Besides, if the Dems take the Senate, you will be hearing more of him.

Bernie was playing very reasonable real-politics there imo. I would even give him a medal for showing example of how to do politics in democracy. You gotta submit to the will of the people, and make reasonable compromises.

However, given the fact that plenty of his supporters were young, having been a young radical myself once (that's another story and not really a political one), I do sympathize with the feeling of betrayal younger folks might feel after such decision.

 

[grasping the after wind]

There is nothing hypocritical with a social democrat (as I would label Bernie) becoming wealthy. Social democracy is about redistributing a portion of wealth, not socializing all of the money.

You're probably mistaking Bernie for a communist, which he is not.

According to Bernie, he is a Socialist. There is no such thing as a true communist in politics so, no, I am not confusing him with a communist.

What is the difference between a Socialist and a Capitalist if the Socialist seems to desire the same sort of wealth gap between government elites and the rest of society as the Capitalist desires between private sector elites and the rest of society? I would contend that the difference is that in a socialist system the government elites will never allow or admit there is a need for an advocate for the rest of society while in a capitalist system the government can be that advocate.

 

[Jack of Spades]

According to Bernie, he is a Socialist.

It's confusing to me why he calls himself that. Bernie does not promote state owning the means of production, so therefore he is not campaigning against capitalism.

There is either a confusion in terminology, or the word socialism has evolved over the last century to mean something it didn't mean hundred years ago, which was the opposite of capitalism.

 

[JackRT]

It's confusing to me why he calls himself that. Bernie does not promote state owning the means of production, so therefore he is not campaigning against capitalism.

There is either a confusion in terminology, or the word socialism has evolved over the last century to mean something it didn't mean hundred years ago, which was the opposite of capitalism.

Yes, it has evolved over the decades. Socialism was originally synonymous with communism. However the modern social democratic movement is actually capitalism that has been humanized by socialist ideas to prevent the excesses that unregulated capitalism is so prone to.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It's confusing to me why he calls himself that. Bernie does not promote state owning the means of production, so therefore he is not campaigning against capitalism.

There is either a confusion in terminology, or the word socialism has evolved over the last century to mean something it didn't mean hundred years ago, which was the opposite of capitalism.

IMO the opposite of Capitalism would be something more like a barter economy or a total slave economy not Socialism. Socialism, no matter how it is defined, is not really an economic system at all. It is a form of governmental system where government controls the economic system( this could be by direct ownership as in the old Soviet Union or by indirect control as practiced by Fascists and to a lesser degree by Social Democrats and Progressives. ). Normally the economic system is some form of capitalist economy where the government acts as the primary entrepreneur. Capitalism is a strictly economic system that can function under any governmental system including a fully socialist one. True Communism would also be opposite of Capitalism as it has, as far as I can see, no economic system at all, only complete sharing of resources by all. In other words a complete fantasy and complete fantasy is truly the opposite of complete reality.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes, it has evolved over the decades. Socialism was originally synonymous with communism. However the modern social democratic movement is actually capitalism that has been humanized by socialist ideas to prevent the excesses that unregulated capitalism is so prone to.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Yes, it has evolved over the decades. Socialism was originally synonymous with communism. However the modern social democratic movement is actually capitalism that has been humanized by socialist ideas to prevent the excesses that unregulated capitalism is so prone to.

I guess I just have to get used to Americans calling that socialism.

In Finland, which is a very pro-social democracy - country, nobody ever refers to welfare politics etc. as "socialism".

Socialism is a bad word here, understood to refer only to Soviet Union - type of totalitarian socialism.

 

[TheNorwegian]

What is the difference between a Socialist and a Capitalist if the Socialist seems to desire the same sort of wealth gap between government elites and the rest of society as the Capitalist desires between private sector elites and the rest of society?

Social democracies have a wealth gap, but nowhere anything like in the US. Check wealth distribution in the US compared to Scandinavian countries.

Social democracies redistribute SOME of the wealth through progressive taxation. Not total redistribution as in Communism, nor do they allow the super rich to exploit the working masses

 

[grasping the after wind]

Social democracies have a wealth gap, but nowhere anything like in the US. Check wealth distribution in the US compared to Scandinavian countries.

Social democracies redistribute SOME of the wealth through progressive taxation. Not total redistribution as in Communism, nor do they allow the super rich to exploit the working masses

I asked about Socialists not social democracies. The US is a social democracy BTW. It redistributes much wealth through progressive taxation and other programs . Unfortunately most of that wealth is redistributed to bureaucrats and political elites like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, crony capitalist companies like Solyndra, GM ,the big banks and Wall Street , Big Education and Big Insurance.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I guess I just have to get used to Americans calling that socialism.

In Finland, which is a very pro-social democracy - country, nobody ever refers to welfare politics etc. as "socialism".

Socialism is a bad word here, understood to refer only to Soviet Union - type of totalitarian socialism.

Totalitarian Socialism ought to be a bad word . Any totalitarian ism ought to be, but there are less virulent forms of socialism.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Totalitarian Socialism ought to be a bad word . Any totalitarian ism ought to be, but there are less virulent forms of socialism.

Well anyway, I guess we're done with the semantics here, so I stick to my point.

Social democracy (I prefer that word) has no position against people getting wealthy. Actually quite contrary, wealthy people pay more taxes and therefore their success benefits everyone. As long as they pay the taxes, they're benefiting the system.

The case in which I would call a social democracy - promoting politician a hypocrite would be if they committed a tax fraud. Or maybe in some cases if they used legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes, but that's a bit of a gray area.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well anyway, I guess we're done with the semantics here, so I stick to my point.

Social democracy (I prefer that word) has no position against people getting wealthy. Actually quite contrary, wealthy people pay more taxes and therefore their success benefits everyone. As long as they pay the taxes, they're benefiting the system.



The case in which I would call a social democracy - promoting politician a hypocrite would be if they committed a tax fraud. Or maybe in some cases if they used legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes, but that's a bit of a gray area.

Since the US is a social democratic republic I wonder where you are going with this? We have a progressive income tax and we have a very robust social welfare system. Our health care insurance industry is heavily regulated and no one can legally be denied health care by law in the US for reasons of inability to pay whether they are a citizen a legal visitor or illegally in the country. In education, our government spends more per pupil than any other country in the world. Our corporate income tax is one of the highest in the world.

Bernie though is not a social democrat . He consider himself a democratic Socialist and for good reason. After all, since the US is already a social democracy why would he be considered out of the mainstream if he was merely a social democrat? Maybe he would want more in quantity of the status quo i.e. taxes and more regulations etc. but he ran as something different not as someone looking to do the same just more of it.