Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bernie lost all credibility when he cut and run after Hillary cheated him in the primaries. What did he do? Bought an expensive vacation home in Vermont rather than helping the needy, which is something he preaches.
Why don't people grasp that if HRC hadn't prevented other viable Democrat candidates from running, Bernie would have been a total afterthought? No way he would have stood out next to 4 or 5 other DECENT candidates.
People, there were only 2 on that ticket by design. And she played him. He may have been in on it all along, who knows? But he sure took it like a good little soldier with a....ahem.... newly purchased 600K property right after the primaries. (Somebody should check the legality of that.)
He's a nothingburger. A beatnik who floated around with no steady paycheck until he was 40 when he finally convinced the people of Burlington, VT to make him the Mayor. So, his only steady work and income in his life (the last 35 years) has been from taxpayers. That's not criminal but, it sure as heck isn't impressive.
Anyone who has lived in metro NYC more than 2 or 3 years would recognize his shtick. Guys like him are a dime a dozen there.
"The goal of socialism is communism."
--- Vladimir Lenin
I'm not totally convinced that Bernie wouldn't have done well had other Democrats run. It would have been more competitive, which is good (though as noted by the Republican primaries, doesn't always have good results), but I don't see why Bernie wouldn't have been able to compete. His biggest positions are universal healthcare (which has a growing number of support even now), tuition free public universities, and increases in minimum wage. None of these positions are all the controversial, with most people at least agreeing that he's looking in the right direction, even if his exact solutions are a little outside of what they personally believe in.
I find judging someone based on past employment to be incredibly indecent. Not having a steady paycheck is not a sign of being a subpar human. He did what he believed in for this time, which I find it disgusting that you or anyone would actually take issue with. And you can scoff about being paid by taxpayers (to which police officers are, and not to profile, but I'd imagine you take issue with those that you perceive as being anti-police, a position that would be entirely hypocritical as you apparently take issue with being paid for a public service), but if the people want him, that's the end of the discussion. It's entirely valid.
And, your Lenin quote is cute, but meaningless. Lenin does not have the final authority on socialism or communism. Neither does Marx, for that matter. While it's true, communists believe that socialism exist to create communism, as part of Marx's theory on societal progression. However, if someone is a socialist without being a communist, then they don't agree with the Lenin quote. Period. Bernie Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist, a term that basically means he believes in certain public utilities being socialized, like healthcare, but most free market enterprises would not be consumed by the state. And even then, often the socialized services still allow for free market competition.
Bernie Sanders admits to being a Democratic Socialist. What is a democratic socialist? A person who believes in the pursuit of socialism through democratic means. What is the goal or ideal socialism as described in Das Kapital? Answer: Communism.
Now, spin away, little religious zealots of the religion of State. Pray for your deprivation, slavery, and mass graves. The only possible outcome of collectivist ideologies.
Bernie lost all credibility when he cut and run after Hillary cheated him in the primaries. What did he do? Bought an expensive vacation home in Vermont rather than helping the needy, which is something he preaches.
Did Lyin Ted and Little Marco lose all their credibility when they supported Trump?
I mean, I sure think they did but was curious as to your thoughts.
Bernie Sanders admits to being a Democratic Socialist. What is a democratic socialist? A person who believes in the pursuit of socialism through democratic means. What is the goal or ideal socialism as described in Das Kapital? Answer: Communism.
Now, spin away, little religious zealots of the religion of State. Pray for your deprivation, slavery, and mass graves. The only possible outcome of collectivist ideologies.
He is a Social Democrat, not a Democratic Socialist.
Now go google those terms, and try to educate yourself, unless of course you want to stay ignorant.
Bernie Sanders admits to being a Democratic Socialist. What is a democratic socialist? A person who believes in the pursuit of socialism through democratic means. What is the goal or ideal socialism as described in Das Kapital? Answer: Communism.
Now, spin away, little religious zealots of the religion of State. Pray for your deprivation, slavery, and mass graves. The only possible outcome of collectivist ideologies.
I imagine you're the one who repped my post and left this message:
Quote:
goal of social democracy? socialism. goal of socialism? communism. ignoring reality does not make it go away
If it wasn't you, then you're not the coward who can't debate things publicly.
Either way, my point I made earlier stands.
Let's say I'm a socialist (I am not), but not a Marxist. Why then would anything Marx says about the 'goals of socialism' apply to my version of socialism?
The answer is, of course, that it wouldn't. If I believe the goal of socialism is to simply give workers the property rights to their labor, then that's my view of socialism, regardless of what you or Marx say the goal of socialism is.
Let's say I'm a socialist (I am not), but not a Marxist. Why then would anything Marx says about the 'goals of socialism' apply to my version of socialism?
The answer is, of course, that it wouldn't. If I believe the goal of socialism is to simply give workers the property rights to their labor, then that's my view of socialism, regardless of what you or Marx say the goal of socialism is.
I was the rep Didn't think that there was a debate to be had, as I didn't think that someone who believes in particular versions of collectivism, don't believe in what those that created the definitions of it. You are not a socialist, which you stated, but if you were, it would be silly for you to say that you are a socialist, but not a socialist in the sense of those who defined what socialism is, would it not? If you didn't believe in socialism, as it was defined by its designers, you would call yourself something else. Or you should at least write your own version of Das Kapital to redefine it first. You could call it Dusty Socialism: The final solution, this time it will work is spite of human nature.
Workers having the property rights of their labor? Don't people have a right to start their own business? If you choose to work for someone else instead of starting your own business, you are choosing to be a slave to someone else. Someone who has nothing to offer others on their own, except by being a beast of burden to another should feel lucky to have a job in the first place. (Because that someone else is making your uselessness useful.)
So I take it that you believe that labor is exploited? Well, even though I believe in human freedom, unlike collectivists of all stripes, I will agree with you here. Shocked? Yes, labor is exploited, and there are vast income inequalities. However I am pretty sure we disagree as to what are the root causes of this.
First it is the profit principle. Which is just a result of human greed and is not something that can be done away with. It would take a philosophical change, not government guns. I believe in a free market, so human nature will not eliminate the evil of profit. For my freedom loving friends, I believe the free market is ideally a market of EXCHANGE not PROFIT. The notion of profit as a virtue, is at its heart, a vile ugly human belief. Profit means to receive more than you have given. It is exploitation no matter which costume it wears. If we had a market of exchange, value for value, profit would not exist. Alas, again, human nature will prevail, and until the underlying philosophy changes, profit will still dominate are interactions. So there is nothing that can be done on this front without using aggression to destroy human freedom. And I am against any form of aggression, by any person, group, or government upon any person, group, or government.
Now we get to the real underlying problem with the entire world's most vexing problems. It is our concept of money (rather the lack of any real grasp of what our money does to us) and the slavery system we know of as "banking". This can be approached.
The foremost force that generates the confiscation of the vast majority of the world's wealth into the hand of the select few, is fiat currency and banking. Through the legalized monopolies of fiat currency, counterfeiting, usury, and partial reserve banking, there is no limit as to the amount of wealth that can be confiscated from the world that uses these private fiat or paper currencies. There is no limit as to how much of the worlds wealth can be consolidated in the hands of a few chosen families.
Currency, supposedly, is a medium of exchange and nothing else. However if some have more access to it than other, and some can create it out of thin air, then it cannot any longer be seen as a medium of exchange. It becomes a medium of confiscation of wealth. Whenever the supply expands, the value of all currency in existence falls. Only those that create that currency gain any real wealth, everyone who merely uses it, loses wealth. (This is why Kings loved paper or fiat currency so much, just by creating it they could tax the people indirectly without limit, and no one had to go and collect it )
An ideal currency would be something that everyone has equal access to, no one could horde or consolidate beyond what they have actually invested, and it had a constant tangible value. I personally would advocate a time currency. You invest your time doing something for someone else and you earn the time of another to serve you. You could not inherit it, you could save it, but it would disappear when you die, and you could not "loan" it to others and ask for usury. You could earn no more that you have actually invested, and you could spend no more than you actually invested. You could become no richer than the lifetime you invest. Everyone would have the same relative amount of time to invest, from birth to death. And finally, no matter how "successful" one could be, they could never have a life that was worth more than the life of another.
Now, usury is an abomination as it always has been since biblical times. It ties right in with the justification of exploitation known as profit. However it is even more inane in that money tokens can consolidate other people's wealth simply because it exists. Money earning money is absurd. It is a medium of exchange, it does not on its own, produce anything for anyone in the market. It simply is a token. Even the ancients saw that this scam was pure evil.
Partial reserve banking should be seen for the evil absurdity it is to anyone. But it is not. The experiment that they should undertake is to take ten of their dollars and "loan" out 1000 dollars. Charge say 6% interest. Then finally collect $1060.00 in profit. All while starting with just ten dollars. Their "noble" government would put them under a jail. But this is exactly how our "banking" system works. Creating money out of thin air with digital expansion of currency that the bank does not have and charging interest on the fictional loans. It is a license to steal with no limits whatsoever.
It is actually even worse than the above when you consider the velocity of money, the fake money originators get full value, because the expansion has not reached the market yet to deflate the value, and then they receive full inflation adjusted currency when the loan is paid off. Or even go into a bank and offer them the same loan that they would offer you, they will laugh you out of the bank.
I will take serious some of the ideas of those who advocate slavery to the State, collectivists, when they start to at least address the real causes of wealth inequality, deprivation, wars, etc. It is not "businesses" or "capitalism" and certainly not individual human freedom which cause the ills that so abhor. It is the Money Cartel, and the puppet governments that they have bankrupted and owned throughout the world. Kill the monetary system and the governments, then you will see human freedom and more equality among the human population. Slavery to the State or fictional collective is not the answer and never will be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Didn't think that there was a debate to be had, as I didn't think that someone who believes in particular versions of collectivism, don't believe in what those that created the definitions of it. You are not a socialist, which you stated, but if you were, it would be silly for you to say that you are a socialist, but not a socialist in the sense of those who defined what socialism is, would it not? If you didn't believe in socialism, as it was defined by its designers, you would call yourself something else. Or you should at least write your own version of Das Kapital to redefine it first. You could call it Dusty Socialism: The final solution, this time it will work is spite of human nature. 
