I understand the distinction. As far as it filters down to me, Sanders has always described himself as a "socialist" and thus remains an independent member of the American legislature. He also has a radical student past, which I've recently read about and just kind of always assumed. I have trouble with a self-described "socialist" not knowing that socialism means owning the means of production and setting prices, wages, and proscribing labor. I could be dead wrong, but I'm not sure about that. Perhaps he made the distinction and I am unaware. I'm always surprised that anyone would take the "democratic socialist" moniker and then apply it to themselves in such a reductive way.
Look, at times, one scratches, sniffs, and finds the ### of the matter, if you know what I'm saying.
Perhaps I'd be much more amenable to Bernie's solutions knowing his platform recently.
This sounds eerily similar to complaints about our current President.
Don't care. This guy calls himself a socialist. I know what the hell a democratic socialist is.
He wants to own the means of production at a state level. This is an extreme position -- much more extreme than Republicans, which is what this thread is about.
He leads the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, and this is becoming a story.
From the WSJ, a righteous takedown.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-socialist-surge-1439334004
Has he really said anything remotely like that? I don't think so, but I'm open to some links to his quotes on that if you got them.
Also - does it really get any more socialist than our perpetual war meat grinder providing government jobs to soldiers and welfare to military production corporations? Seems like expanding that is the really big idea all the Rs had at the last debate. Pretty sure Sanders wants to cut military spending.
I linked in post #33 and to the WSJ article, which is now sadly behind a pay wall (it wasn't before.)
It sounds, from what I can ascertain, that his definition of socialism is nebulous. However, he has written often for socialist publications, insists he is not "scared" of the word, and orders the word in a specific philosophical way that indicates to me that yes, he is in favor of the means of production being owned by the state even though he dissents from that at times. I would guess it depends on which audience he speaks to, but politicians are statesmen, if nothing else. It would be like me using the words "anarcho-capitalist" and then claiming that, well, "anarcho-capitalist" is really up to interpretation, and we don't have a concrete definition, blah, blah, blah. He repeats that he's a democratic socialist, over and over. What more do people need? This is a guy who traffics in socialist thought and publications. He knows what the ordering is, and what it means.
And the military, government contracts, and other things that go along with it are certainly a sign of statism. I don't think people debate that. How necessary -- and to what extent they are necessary -- is the R debate.
And on a lighter-hearted note, roadkill1292's post to the http was indeed hilarious, and I enjoyed the link, if not the criticism of what fuels a late-night political thread. (I would ask about Estonia's economic freedom ranking, though, and whether it fits in with Scandinavia...)