Bernie: Pope Francis Is a Socialist

[zz912]

You can’t allow private ownership of property and be socialist. That’s a contradiction. By your own words fascists aren’t far-left.

Nope, but nice try. Fascism is just a different flavor. Ownership is different, but the government is still in control. If the state says your factory will build tanks instead of cars, you WILL build tanks instead of cars. Many today claim Bernie’s not a socialist because he doesn’t want the govt to actually own everything you have, but he does want to control it. He’s a different flavor from the communists, but he’s a socialist.

Fascists are huge totalitarians, and are far left.

 

[Darryl1958]

Bottom line, BS says he is a socialist.

 

[abucs]

Nope. That’s a nonsensical scale that doesn’t differentiate between vastly different ideologies. The actual political scale runs the gamut of government power, from total anarchy and zero government, to socialism/communism. Fascism is next to these two because of they are all totalitarian and controlling, just differing in who owns the means of production, but in each the government is supreme.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ollG2KugbOw/UtsCW0o6LdI/AAAAAAAAAMg/heA1OsVrmUM/s1600/blog+pic+4.gif

Yeah, i put both the National Socialist Labour Party of Hitler and the National Fascisto party of Mussolini on the far left. Not quite as far left as the communists, but pretty close.

The term Nazi is an abbreviation for State Nationalisation. If a business did not support the ideology of National Socialism the Nazis had no qualms about having the state take it over.

While the Soviet Socialists used aggressive, immoral law to take control of business the National Socialists used aggressive, immoral co-ercion and the threat of law to take control of business. I think i also read that the Nazi Socialist government also ended up setting the prices for goods and services which is another form of control.

Benito Mussolini of the National Fascisto Party - "All within the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state’.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

The reality is the Catholic Church has a very dim view on central planning, especially socialism and communism, which are specifically called out by name. In the case of communism, the end all, be all is the state basically “replaces” God.

I suppose the same argument could be made for socialism, but it has never been fully put into practice anywhere on a national scale at least.

Communism is stateless. Socialism is the transitional state aimed at achieving communism. Bernie wants neither.

www.ironmarch.org

Ask these people what they think of capitalism.

Ask them if they want private property to be abolished and for all of the means of production to be socially owned. Fascism is a mass movement that relies on anti-capitalist rhetoric, but it is not anti-capitalist in actuality.

Nope, but nice try. Fascism is just a different flavor. Ownership is different, but the government is still in control. If the state says your factory will build tanks instead of cars, you WILL build tanks instead of cars.

Many communists advocate democratic control of the means of production, with the workers deciding what to make, not the state. This is a key criticism from Trotsky of the USSR. Lenin also argued for a very democratic state in State and Revolution. Your understanding of communism is appalling. Libertarian socialists such as Rosa Luxembourg also advocated for free press and multiple parties and stuff, it’s only Marxist-Leninists (and maybe Trotskyists) who want a one-party state (and even a one-party state can have democracy).

Many today claim Bernie’s not a socialist because he doesn’t want the govt to actually own everything you have, but he does want to control it. He’s a different flavor from the communists, but he’s a socialist.

Communism is a stateless, classless society, the end goal of socialism. Socialism is where the means of production are socially owned by the working class. Bernie wants neither.

Fascists are huge totalitarians, and are far left.

Yes they are, and no they are not.

Nope. That’s a nonsensical scale that doesn’t differentiate between vastly different ideologies. The actual political scale runs the gamut of government power, from total anarchy and zero government, to socialism/communism. Fascism is next to these two because of they are all totalitarian and controlling, just differing in who owns the means of production, but in each the government is supreme.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ollG2KugbOw/UtsCW0o6LdI/AAAAAAAAAMg/heA1OsVrmUM/s1600/blog+pic+4.gif

I feel ill. This isn’t a genuine look at the political spectrum. Anarchism is left-wing (anarcho-communism, etc.). Communism is also left-wing and stateless and classless, while socialism (what you probably think of as communism) is a transitional state towards achieving communism. I mean read some Marx or any actual political theory or something, stop getting all of your politics from right-libertarian blogs.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Bottom line, BS says he is a socialist.

Bottom line, Pelosi says she is a Catholic. See? What someone says they are isn’t the bottom line after all, is it?

 

[abucs]

Bottom line, Pelosi says she is a Catholic. See? What someone says they are isn’t the bottom line after all, is it?

When a large group of socialists come out and reject Bernie Sanders as a socialist then the point will be more valid.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When a large group of socialists come out and reject Bernie Sanders as a socialist then the point will be more valid.

You are actually confirming my point by admitting that something more is needed beyond what somebody says they are. In this case, that something is agreement by other socialists that Bernie is what he says he is. So Bernie’s self-identification is still not the “bottom line”.

 

[abucs]

You are actually confirming my point by admitting that something more is needed beyond what somebody says they are. In this case, that something is agreement by other socialists that Bernie is what he says he is. So Bernie’s self-identification is still not the “bottom line”.

Yes.

 

[ChristianDude]

Nope. That’s a nonsensical scale that doesn’t differentiate between vastly different ideologies. The actual political scale runs the gamut of government power, from total anarchy and zero government, to socialism/communism. Fascism is next to these two because of they are all totalitarian and controlling, just differing in who owns the means of production, but in each the government is supreme.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ollG2KugbOw/UtsCW0o6LdI/AAAAAAAAAMg/heA1OsVrmUM/s1600/blog+pic+4.gif

You may call it nonsensical, but that’s how many political scientists scale political ideologies, that’s what “left” and “right” mean. It originates during the era of the French Revolution, when the revolutionaries sat to the left of the President in National Assembly, whereas the monarchists sat to the right; even then there was a distinction between those who expressed support for more equality and those who expressed support for hierarchy. What you call the “actual” political scale is nothing more than an internet fabrication constructed by those with right-libertarian tendencies.

And incidentally, if you’re going to criticize the traditional left-right spectrum, you should see the flaws in the one which you’ve presented, with it’s description of leftism as “tyranny”, and rightism as “liberty”. For one, I think it’s safe to say that any genuine anarchist would be insulted, if not infuriated, to be called right-wing. Anarchists are in fact far-left, they believe in a stateless and classless society; it’s more or less what communism was supposed to be. In fact, one type of anarchism is called anarcho-communism, and the three ideologies of anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, and anarcho-communism all fall under the umbrella term of social anarchism or anarcho-socialism.

Moreover, on the subject of communism, the spectrum presumes that all forms of Marxism are tyrannical. Apparently, whoever made it has never heard of Trotskyism, Luxemburgism, De Leonism, or Autonomism; all of these are democratic varieties of Marxism. I would hardly call socialism tyrannical, as well, as socialists tend to be democratic (and by the way, no, I’m neither Marxist nor socialist, I in fact oppose all leftism in general). To put fascists in the same category as Marxists would be grossly inaccurate as well; yes, fascists and some Marxists are both totalitarian, but in spite of their similarities in how they operate, they actually do have vastly different aims. If you only look at the fact that both are autocratic, then of course they seem the same, but a much closer examination of the tenets of fascism and the tenets of, say, Maoism show some key differences.

Also, if you’re going to put conservatives on the “liberty” side, you run into a pretty big problem. Did Dollfuss, Salazar, Metaxas, or Primo de Rivera support liberty? No, they did not, and they were all conservatives, albeit authoritarian ones; and before you tell me that they were fascists, if that’s what your response is, then I don’t mean to be haughty, but you honestly don’t know what fascism actually is, with all due respect. Again, putting anarchists on the right-wing is flawed, and the spectrum you present appears to hold the notion that anarchism is simply the opposition to the existence of the state, when in fact it is much more than that; it is opposition to all hierarchy, whether it be the state or class or social constructs or religion. Anarchism has an egalitarian outlook, as much as Marxism does and beyond that of socialism.

 

[Abynissa]

In The American Conservative HaHa Bernie is listed as the only conservative candidate running in both races

 

[Alex_H]

I think Bernie is correct.

I think that Catholics can have disagreements in good faith about the best way to take care of the poor and solve income inequality. You have those who say that only a government program that uses taxes can adequately help the poor. Then there are others who believe that if the government just got out of the way, the poor wouldn’t be as poor because they would have better jobs.

 

[abucs]

Also, if you’re going to put conservatives on the “liberty” side, you run into a pretty big problem. Did Dollfuss, Salazar, Metaxas, or Primo de Rivera support liberty? No, they did not, and they were all conservatives, albeit authoritarian ones;

I think conservatives, monarchists, traditionalists and right wingers are different things but they can co-exist and overlap.

I think anarchism has been a tactic of the left to destroy traditional cultures in an effort to re-orient society towards socialism. So from that perspective i also see anarchism as largely being of the left.

 

[Rose71]

It doesn’t really matter to the average man in the street whether his country is at the far left or far right of the spectrum. He’s likely to end up at the bottom of the heap, with no chance of progression under either anarchy or communism. Both those models are just ‘Capitalism for the Few’ anyway! I’ve yet to see a system - even anarchy- that a handful of bullies don’t do exceedingly well for themselves out of.

I don’t see myself as right wing or left wing. I have friends who think I am far-right and friends who think I am far-left because I believe that everyone should look out for their fellow humans and take personal responsibility for their actions and consider the impact they have on the rest of society and the environment. I don’t believe this can be achieved by ‘positive discrimintaion’ and enforced political correctness.

I suspect there are a lot of other people who are Rose71-ists

I also detest the word ‘spectrum’ to describe anything involving emotions, beliefs and philosphy because life isn’t 2 dimensional!

 

[Latias]

Nope, but nice try. Fascism is just a different flavor. Ownership is different, but the government is still in control. If the state says your factory will build tanks instead of cars, you WILL build tanks instead of cars. Many today claim Bernie’s not a socialist because he doesn’t want the govt to actually own everything you have, but he does want to control it. He’s a different flavor from the communists, but he’s a socialist.

Fascists are huge totalitarians, and are far left.

That is true for any country at war. If you are facing the Wehrmacht or the prospective invasion, you need to build tanks. It is part of having a “war economy”.

This is really quite risible actually. To claim that socialism, or even something such as Soviet Marxism-Leninism is identical to Nazism, is like claiming that radio waves have the same energy as gamma rays. The notion of “totalitarianism” is bogus; it is just a term to conflate unjustly the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany (and to justify US opposition to Soviet influence by giving it the magnanimous pretense of opposing “totalitarianism”). Also, “socialism in one country” is not “national socialism” as the former is a response to the geopolitical reality of the failed European revolutions after WWI, while the latter reflects the need to subordinate some of the state’s enterprises for the strength of the nation. Moreover, Hitler appeared to usufruct some of the populist rhetoric of “socialism” (as socialism is not mere populism) in order to appeal to the lower class.

Further, while Hitler for “tactical” reasons had rhetorically declared a 1920 party platform with socialist platitudes “unshakable,” actually “many paragraphs of the party program were obviously merely a demagogic appeal to the mood of the lower classes at a time when they were in bad straits and were sympathetic to radical and even socialist slogans…Point 11, for example…Point 12…nationalization…Point 16…communalization… put in at the insistence of Drexler and Feder, who apparently really believed in the ‘socialism’ of National Socialism.”[39] In actual practice, such points were mere slogans, “most of them forgotten by the time the party came to power… the Nazi leader himself was later to be embarrassed when reminded of some of them.”[39] At the same time Stalin was consistent in his implementation of complete nationalization and communalization of the country.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nazism_and_Stalinism#Socialism

I think anarchism has been a tactic of the left to destroy traditional cultures in an effort to re-orient society towards socialism. So from that perspective i also see anarchism as largely being of the left.

So anarchism is not a branch of left-wing political philosophy, but something concocted by some leftist conspiracy to undermine society. You sound like Kevin MacDonald, but replacing “the left” with “the Jews” and “anarchism” with “multiculturalism”.

 

[Darryl1958]

Bottom line, Pelosi says she is a Catholic. See? What someone says they are isn’t the bottom line after all, is it?

And you are saying she is not?

The bottom line is what people self-report. She may not be a Catholic according to your terms, just as those who support Democrats are not Catholics according to other people’s terms, but in a very real sense, she is a Catholic because she says so.

That is how the game is played.

 

[Darryl1958]

When a large group of socialists come out and reject Bernie Sanders as a socialist then the point will be more valid.

Of all the candidates, the further left that one is on these forums, the more it is Bernie that is the one receiving their support.
And most complain that he is not socialist enough, which tells us a lot more about them than him.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…but in a very real sense, she [Pelosi] is a Catholic because she says so…

I will have to bookmark this posting to see if you ever question Pelosi’s standing as a Catholic in the future.

 

[grotto]

Bottom line, Pelosi says she is a Catholic. See? What someone says they are isn’t the bottom line after all, is it?

---

I am really tired of hearing Bernie Sanders drone and scold, but seeing and hearing Hillary lie and bark like a dog while dragging Bill with her is off the charts! They should get out of town while they still can. The truth hurts!

 

[zz912]

Communism is stateless. Socialism is the transitional state aimed at achieving communism. Bernie wants neither.

Lol!

SUUUUUURE it is. That’s why in every single example in history of communist & socialist countries, they have massive states. You can keep believing in stateless communism that’s based on nothing more than theory, but those of us in the real world won’t be placating your fantasy.

Ask them if they want private property to be abolished and for all of the means of production to be socially owned. Fascism is a mass movement that relies on anti-capitalist rhetoric, but it is not anti-capitalist in actuality.

It’s not capitalistic. Capitalism requires freedom for people to decide to enter or not enter into transactions freely. That doesn’t exist in fascism. So while it has a different look than communism, it still relies on socialistic beliefs. It’s just a different flavor.

Many communists advocate democratic control of the means of production, with the workers deciding what to make, not the state. This is a key criticism from Trotsky of the USSR. Lenin also argued for a very democratic state in State and Revolution. Your understanding of communism is appalling. Libertarian socialists such as Rosa Luxembourg also advocated for free press and multiple parties and stuff, it’s only Marxist-Leninists (and maybe Trotskyists) who want a one-party state (and even a one-party state can have democracy).

Again, you can pretend that unicorns exist, and talk endlessly about them, but the rest of us will not placate your fantasy.

Communism is a stateless, classless society, the end goal of socialism. Socialism is where the means of production are socially owned by the working class. Bernie wants neither.

Is there any industry that Bernie doesn’t want the government to control?

Yes they are, and no they are not.

I understand how desperately you wish you could pretend they are far right. What does it say about your beliefs when so many evil, murdering ideologies agree with your beliefs?

I feel ill. This isn’t a genuine look at the political spectrum. Anarchism is left-wing (anarcho-communism, etc.). Communism is also left-wing and stateless and classless, while socialism (what you probably think of as communism) is a transitional state towards achieving communism. I mean read some Marx or any actual political theory or something, stop getting all of your politics from right-libertarian blogs.

You feel ill? Cause your religion is criticized? Perhaps you should join us in reality and realize that the picture I posted is exactly what reality looks like. The political spectrum runs from massive and total government control down to zero government anarchy.

The vast majority of “anarchists” are anarchists at all. They actually just want to overthrown, through violence, the current government and install their preferred government (which is usually socialism/communism).

 

[zz912]

And incidentally, if you’re going to criticize the traditional left-right spectrum, you should see the flaws in the one which you’ve presented, with it’s description of leftism as “tyranny”, and rightism as “liberty”. For one, I think it’s safe to say that any genuine anarchist would be insulted, if not infuriated, to be called right-wing. Anarchists are in fact far-left, they believe in a stateless and classless society; it’s more or less what communism was supposed to be. In fact, one type of anarchism is called anarcho-communism, and the three ideologies of anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, and anarcho-communism all fall under the umbrella term of social anarchism or anarcho-socialism.

Of course “anarchists” would be insulted, because they aren’t actually anarchists. They just want to violently overthrow the current government for communism/socialism. They don’t want a stateless society, they just want to tear down the current state and replace it with their favored type of state, mostly massively socialistic or communistic state.

Moreover, on the subject of communism, the spectrum presumes that all forms of Marxism are tyrannical. Apparently, whoever made it has never heard of Trotskyism, Luxemburgism, De Leonism, or Autonomism; all of these are democratic varieties of Marxism. I would hardly call socialism tyrannical, as well, as socialists tend to be democratic (and by the way, no, I’m neither Marxist nor socialist, I in fact oppose all leftism in general). To put fascists in the same category as Marxists would be grossly inaccurate as well; yes, fascists and some Marxists are both totalitarian, but in spite of their similarities in how they operate, they actually do have vastly different aims. If you only look at the fact that both are autocratic, then of course they seem the same, but a much closer examination of the tenets of fascism and the tenets of, say, Maoism show some key differences.

There are plenty of mythologies and theories about how “true” communism is stateless. And they are all just that, myth. In every instance of socialistic or communistic societies, the state is massive and controlling.