Background:
GOP defines socialism in a way that makes it 'basic kindness in actions' while using it interchangeably with Communism. The following post shows that given how the GOP defines socialism and capitalism, even the Pope has taken a stance in opposition to this sort of capitalism as it's nothing more than highway robbery while using words for prosperity.
The actual economics meaning of socialism is to have all means of production owned by the State and Bernie Sanders has no policy that even hints at turning over citizen powers to the State. All his policies help "we the people as per the preamble to the Constitution and are capitalistic in nature.... as these articles explain:
The plot to marginalize Bernie Sanders: The shared agenda that links Fox News and Hillary Clinton surrogates Both parties are owned by plutocrats. Sanders' challenge threatens them both, and their responses are oddly similar
Everyone is scrambling to make sense of the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. According to recent polls, the senator from Vermont is second only to Hillary Clinton among likely Democratic voters. Part of the confusion, it seems, has to do with Sanders’ so-called “socialism.” How, the pundits ask, can a self-described “socialist” gain any traction in American politics today?
I expect conservatives to pound this question down the throats of their audiences, but Democrats have latched onto this trope as well. Sen. Claire McCaskill, for instance, blithely suggested that Americans will reject Sanders once they discover his socialist roots: “This is somebody who can carry the torch of middle class opportunity without alienating a wide swath of voters by being, frankly, a socialist,” McCaskill said in defense of Hillary Clinton.
This is becoming tedious. First, Bernie Sanders isn’t a socialist – at least not in the conventional sense of that term. It’s true that he occasionally accepts the label, but he does so in a very nuanced way – which, in my view, only adds to the confusion. But that’s another problem altogether. The point is that there are no socialist candidates running for president. However elastic the term has become, “socialist” does not mean progressive or liberal Democrat. Socialism, at minimum, requires the abolition of private property and government ownership of the means of production.
Nothing in Bernie Sanders’ platform qualifies as socialist, if that term has any relation at all to its historical meaning. Obsessing over Sanders’ socialist leanings is an exercise in distraction. The choice today, the only choice we really have, is between different species of capitalism. Republicans are absolutists; they fetishize the free market. People like Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal want no regulation, no safety nets, and no constraints on private power. They represent the true believers, the ones who despise government and make a divinity of the market. Sanders rejects this brand of capitalist theology, but that doesn’t make him a socialist.
Take a look at Sanders’ actual platform. He’s not calling for the elimination of private ownership of productive forces. His agenda fits neatly under a capitalist paradigm – as it must. Yes, he wants to regulate commercial activities. Yes, he wants to break up too-big-to-fail banks. Yes, he supports unions. And yes, he believes healthcare and education are human rights. He is, however, a capitalist. What he – and many other Americans – reject is corporate welfare and monopoly capitalism and the complete financialization of the American economy. Again, that doesn’t make him a socialist. Even the conservative columnist George Will has acknowledged that Sanders’ vision is just a diluted version of the “social democracy” practiced in much of Europe.
He’s not calling for a revolution. He wants to impose democratic checks on an increasingly undemocratic system. And he wants to do so in ways perfectly consistent with what most Americans actually desire. The entitlement programs conservatives so deplore, for example, are wildly popular when Americans are asked about specific programs rather than vague concepts like “socialism.” Even his progressive taxation plan is conservative when compared to previous Republican administrations such as Dwight Eisenhower.
Why Bernie Sanders should be the 1 percent’s candidate (yes, really) If America's ultra-rich know what's good for them, they'll start getting behind Sanders' progressive reforms
If you are a regular viewer of Fox News, you may think of Bernie Sanders as some kind of radical socialist who wants to bring down the entire capitalist system — a modern day Lenin or Trotsky. The truth, of course, is that Sanders is neither a socialist nor a radical, or even an anti-capitalist. In the historical scheme of things, Sanders is actually a moderate (based on his policy proposals, at least). And, if they were smart, one percenters may very well want to consider voting for him, if they hope to avoid a truly radical movement in the future.
What do I mean by a truly radical movement? Basically, a movement where the people realize that American democracy is more of an illusion than a reality, and that the political apparatus is heavily rigged to favor the ruling class. A movement where people conclude that filing petitions, writing letters, and attempting to lobby politicians, when up against a global corporation, is largely futile, and that an election between two corporatists just isn’t good enough.
Now, this could be far off or not so far off — writer Chris Hedges believes it is closer than many suspect (although he thinks it could as easily be reactionary as progressive) — but history does show us that as inequalities increase, class antagonisms increase, and eventually, the status quo crumbles. The modern welfare state was largely founded on mediating these class tensions and preserving the status quo. In fact, the idea of Social Security was not originally introduced by radical leftists, but the staunchly conservative Chancellor of Germany, Otto Von Bismarck, under the German monarchy. Bismarck founded social insurance to “keep the German economy operating at maximum efficiency, and to stave-off calls for more radical socialist alternatives,” according to the Social Security website. Of course, Bismarck was called a socialist for his pragmatism, and responded to the hyperbole with indifference: “Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me.”
President Franklin Roosevelt similarly introduced New Deal reforms to prevent more radical alternatives from gaining steam, or to “save capitalism from itself.” As Roosevelt said in a private letter in the early 1930s:
“No question in my mind that it is time for the country to become fairly radical for at least one generation. History shows us that where this occurs, occasionally, nations are saved from revolutions.”
New Deal reform was fairly radical, but nowhere near the radicalism that the country needed. The financial regulation and social programs were introduced to limit wealth inequalities and economic instability — two inherent features of capitalism. And indeed, from the New Deal until the last few decades of the 20th century, inequality was reduced and economic crises were limited and controlled through a combination of fiscal and monetary policies.
As the new century approached, however, much of the reform that had been introduced to mediate class tensions was thrown out. The “new economy” of the 21st century didn’t need those regulations and the old welfare programs were thought to induce laziness and fraud (thanks largely to racial propaganda). The Clinton administration helped bury many of the remaining New Deal reforms, further deregulating the financial industry and “reforming” welfare.
The “new economy” was a myth. Capitalism is capitalism, and today, with inequality at pre-Great Depression highs, along with economic instability, the pragmatic move would be to once again become “fairly radical.” Some believe it is time to become truly radical, but that is not what Bernie Sanders is about. Sanders, much like FDR, is a liberal who believes that the government should support all classes, not just the one percent. That is progressive, but not the stuff of revolutions. And, if you need further proof that Sanders is no radical, the fact that he said he will support the Democratic candidate, if he does not get the nod himself, shows that he is ultimately a moderate, working within the party system.
Bernie Sanders has brought new attention to the perils of inequality. What if he could do even more?
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has electrified the 2016 presidential race with his no-nonsense energy, authenticity, and class-politics platform. Some of his proposals have already made right-wing heads spin, like his support of a top marginal tax rate of 90 percent (as it was under Eisenhower), and legislation to break up the biggest banks in America, about which he declared: “No single financial institution should have holdings so extensive that its failure could send the world economy into crisis. If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.” Additionally, Sanders has advocated raising the minimum wage, guaranteeing sick leave and vacation for all employees, making public college free, and eliminating money from politics.
Of course, one of the most important ideas for the new century advocated by Sanders has had limited coverage. In his 12 steps forward plan, number three is “creating worker co-ops.” The Sanders campaign writes:
“We need to develop new economic models to increase job creation and productivity. Instead of giving huge tax breaks to corporations which ship our jobs to China and other low-wage countries, we need to provide assistance to workers who want to purchase their own businesses by establishing worker-owned cooperatives. Study after study shows that when workers have an ownership stake in the businesses they work for, productivity goes up, absenteeism goes down and employees are much more satisfied with their jobs.”
Out of all of Sanders’ plans, this is the most “socialistic,” which in its original definition, before it became a meaningless word that Bill O’Reilly likes to shout, meant communal or worker ownership of the means of production. Contrary to what many people think today, socialism and social welfare states are very different — socialism was and is about the workers of the world uniting to grab control of industries and state from the capitalist class, while social welfare states are capitalistic, with the state providing basic necessities to mediate class tensions.
More Bernie Sanders
In Images, this is how the GOP defines socialism;
Even the Pope opposes the GOP (not to mention all the Christian opposition to Paul Ryan's barbaric anti-christ like plan);
Rumors of The Pope's Secret Life: Reports surface that Pope Francis has been secretly sneaking out at night to help the homeless. (02:12)...
Articles:
Salon: The plot to marginalize Bernie Sanders: The shared agenda that links Fox News and Hillary Clinton surrogates
Nothing in Bernie Sanders’ platform qualifies as socialist, if that term has any relation at all to its historical meaning. Obsessing over Sanders’ socialist leanings is an exercise in distraction.
What the Pope is talking about is robber baron capitalism (same as stealing) which is what the GOP promotes.
Related post: Dick Cheney: The Ultimate Laissez-Faire Capitalist?
Proof of anti-Christlike behavior of the GOP;
The golden rule and Jesus's 2nd commandment are pretty much the same thing.
Jesus's 2nd Commandment was:
It's often called "the Golden rule" or 'do unto thers as you would have them to do to you'. -
In image form;
This is what the GOP is like today, reflecting the complete opposite of what the Golden rule is... or in other words, the party of the opposite of the teachings of Jesus or the Anti-Christ Party;
Daily Show: "Let the record show that on January 16, 2012, the good people of South Carolina booed the Golden Rule." ― Jon Stewart...
A preacher explains in more detail (documentary style);
This following preacher explains the Golden Rule as told by Jesus in the Gospels....
Nailing The GOP or GOP illustrated in it's true right wing form;
John McCain: Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran
I've heard people quote how Christianity is about "love" and "turn they cheek". But if the people who most loudly claim to be Christians support violence above all else and quote Bible verses such as "Vengeance is mine said The Lord" as justification for violence, then are we talking here maybe about an unacknowledged cultural blood lust inspired by the fearmongering and war mongering by the GOP.
