Bernie: Pope Francis Is a Socialist

[adowcday]

If i ask a socialist about his ideology then he is not going to say that he wants a repressive state which controls the life of its citizens to the minutest degree and one who persecutes people who do not support his view. He is not going to say he wants a failed economic model where it’s citizens live in fear and repressed anger at the state.

We’ve had over 100 years though to assess socialism in practice and see where such ideology leads.

If you want an end to private property and the state to control and direct the means of production under its own plans then that is exactly what you get. That is exactly what you support in practice. A socialist that closes his eyes to the reality of what his ideology produces is going to agree with you that my definition is a ‘straw man’.

However, there’s literally hundreds of millions of corpses in the ground tonight who wouldn’t think it such a straw man.

By your logic, we should not believe what Bernie says about his own political views. Bernie doesn’t want to end private property, nor does he want the government to control the means of production. He is upfront with his use of the term “socialism” in part to rescue the term from people who are think that the terms refers only to Soviet- or Chinese-style socialism. If you want to know what Bernie would like to do as president, look at Sweden, Norway or Denmark. Hardly the corpse-strewn dystopia you have in mind. Despite the GOP fear of government programs, such countries are prosperous, take good care of their citizens, and peaceful.

By the way, I support Hillary Clinton and not Bernie Sanders (and certainly not the repugnant Donald Trump or the other GOP candidates) for President. I just don’t want lies and misinformation to be spread against a decent man who has been very upfront and articulate about his vision for the country.

 

[ChristianDude]

Which is a reasonable discussion to have since a lot of people use the term socialism very loosely.

Yeah, and that’s the thing. People (at least in America, where frankly political ideologies aren’t quite as various as, say, Europe) tend to use the term “socialism” as a term to describe government intervention in the economy, and so they may conflate anything that advocates more government or a strong state as socialist, anything from social liberal to socialism itself to communism to even fascism. Incidentally, the more proper term for belief in government intervention in the economy would be “Keynesian”.

 

[Latias]

it is not rocket science to understand what Bernie Sanders means when he labels himself and the Pope socialists. He has been quite open in describing his program. People have been quite open in agreeing or disagreeing with that program on its merits.

Only people who live in books with no contact to the real world remain clueless of what Bernie Sanders might possibly mean when he calls himself a socialist.

Ok, fine it is not rocket science. Many people, including you, claim that the Nazis were left-wing and/so “socialists” So, in the context of Bernie Sanders, if Sanders said he was a “socialist”, he likely means social democratic policies and nothing stridently anti-capitalist or revolutionary. Certainly Sanders does not mean he is a Trotskyist, anarchist, or Marxist-Leninist. Perhaps Sanders might mean he is a “democratic socialist”, and one could claim that a democratic socialist is a true "socialist as “democratic socialism” falls within a reasonable demarcation line for “socialism”. To reiterate, these are not the extent of the claims of the scope of socialism as many, including yourself, have made preposterous claims that the Nazis were socialist or left-wing. Maybe you make make a concession that the Nazis were right-wing socialists, or just plain right-wing.

But even then, Sweden is not a “socialist” country because it doesn’t:

(1) use the state to create a new state morality
(2) oppress the population through state control of industry or mandating they must belong to state organisations and the banning of a wide series of non state community structures

 

[ChristianDude]

Ok, fine it is not rocket science. Many people, including you, claim that the Nazis were left-wing and/so “socialists” So, in the context of Bernie Sanders, if Sanders said he was a “socialist”, he likely means social democratic policies and nothing stridently anti-capitalist or revolutionary. Certainly Sanders does not mean he is a Trotskyist, anarchist, or Marxist-Leninist. Perhaps Sanders might mean he is a “democratic socialist”, and one could claim that a democratic socialist is a true "socialist as “democratic socialism” falls within a reasonable demarcation line for “socialism”. To reiterate, these are not the extent of the claims of the scope of socialism as many, including yourself, have made preposterous claims that the Nazis were socialist or left-wing. Maybe you make make a concession that the Nazis were right-wing socialists, or just plain right-wing.

But even then, Sweden is not a “socialist” country because it doesn’t:

(1) use the state to create a new state morality
(2) oppress the population through state control of industry or mandating they must belong to state organisations and the banning of a wide series of non state community structures

This guy gets it.

 

[phil19034]

Pope Francis is NOT a socialist. He is critical of unfettered Capitalism (which we all must be). Americans get confused because many do not remember our own history. During the 1800s and the Industrial Revolution, there were many bad parts to unfettered Capitalism (child labor, unsafe conditions, etc). Over time, Americans passed laws to make working conditions safe and prevent exploitation.

However, in many third world nations, their capitalism is similar to 19th century America. We have understand that the Pope (who comes from South America) is critical of the type of unfettered Capitalism that exists in the Third World. He’s not typically talking about what happens in the First World (other than our ignorance of the Third World)

Additionally, while Wikipedia is Wikipedia, there are some good articles on Socialism there

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

All socialism (from dictator ships, to democratic socialism, and even to social democracy all have one thing in common: The encouragement and preference for “social ownership” vs. private ownership.

Social democracy (which some argue Bernie is) is a stepping stone, a “natural transition,” to socialism.

The Pope and the Catholic Church does not believe in social ownership. The Church believes that private ownership is critical for human dignity. That’s why the Church always insisted that slaves and indentured servants be allowed private ownership of things. This is ONE of MANY reasons why American Slavery got so terrible… Unlike the slavery of the Roman Republic and Empire, American Slaves were not allowed to own anything. They were stripped of their humanity.

If you doubt the Catholic Church’s stance on private property, private ownership, or free enterprise, simply review these verses from the Catechism:

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=private+property&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

God Bless!

 

[adowcday]

Social democracy (which some argue Bernie is) is a stepping stone, a “natural transition,” to socialism.

The Pope and the Catholic Church does not believe in social ownership. The Church believes that private ownership is critical for human dignity.

Social democracy is compatible with private ownership. Again, look at the countries that Bernie has cited as models, such as in Scandinavia. I think that a “slippery slope” argument against social democracy as leading inexorably to government ownership of all property is not borne out by the facts.

Bernie’s brand of socialism is very familiar to the European-born Popes and bishops, and much of the 20th-century social teaching of the Church, including that of Pope Francis, favors governments that provide education, health care, social welfare programs, etc. – that is, Euro-style social democracies. The Church has been very wary of the U.S., by the way. I think that Bernie stands on very solid ground when he says that the Pope is a socialist (that is, a European-style social democrat).

 

[phil19034]

Social democracy is compatible with private ownership. Again, look at the countries that Bernie has cited as models, such as in Scandinavia. I think that a “slippery slope” argument against social democracy as leading inexorably to government ownership of all property is not borne out by the facts.

Bernie’s brand of socialism is very familiar to the European-born Popes and bishops, and much of the 20th-century social teaching of the Church, including that of Pope Francis, favors governments that provide education, health care, social welfare programs, etc. – that is, Euro-style social democracies. The Church has been very wary of the U.S., by the way. I think that Bernie stands on very solid ground when he says that the Pope is a socialist (that is, a European-style social democrat).

A social democrat is not a socialist, but a social democracy is a step to socialism. Might take hundreds of years, but it is a step.

 

[ChristianDude]

Social democracy is compatible with private ownership. Again, look at the countries that Bernie has cited as models, such as in Scandinavia. I think that a “slippery slope” argument against social democracy as leading inexorably to government ownership of all property is not borne out by the facts.

Bernie’s brand of socialism is very familiar to the European-born Popes and bishops, and much of the 20th-century social teaching of the Church, including that of Pope Francis, favors governments that provide education, health care, social welfare programs, etc. – that is, Euro-style social democracies. The Church has been very wary of the U.S., by the way. I think that Bernie stands on very solid ground when he says that the Pope is a socialist (that is, a European-style social democrat).

Exactly, social democracy is essentially an ideology that aims to achieve socialist goals through a capitalist framework.

 

[Darryl1958]

Ok, fine it is not rocket science. Many people, including you, claim that the Nazis were left-wing and/so “socialists”

Whether they are left or right wing is moot.
Whether they had an economic agenda much like that of Bernie Sanders is evidenced by the youtube video presented in this thread that I had been commenting on.

So, in the context of Bernie Sanders, if Sanders said he was a “socialist”, he likely means social democratic policies and nothing stridently anti-capitalist or revolutionary.

A quick glance at wiki will give a snap shot of what Bernie Sanders means.
He does appeal to the anti-capitalism of the Occupy Wall street crowd. I don;t think he is a Maoist talking about power coming from the barrel of a gun.

Certainly Sanders does not mean he is a Trotskyist, anarchist, or Marxist-Leninist.

Probably not. He probably goes not further than Obama in that regard, and limits himself to hanging Mao decorations on his Christmas tree.

Perhaps Sanders might mean he is a “democratic socialist”, and one could claim that a democratic socialist is a true "socialist as “democratic socialism” falls within a reasonable demarcation line for “socialism”. To reiterate, these are not the extent of the claims of the scope of socialism as many, including yourself, have made preposterous claims that the Nazis were socialist or left-wing. Maybe you make make a concession that the Nazis were right-wing socialists, or just plain right-wing.

The evidence presented that I had summed up including things like seventy percent tax rate, widespread redistribution of the wealth, large centralized government, equality as a value-namely material equality and projecting the banks (Wall Street) as the problem.

 

[seekerz]

Exactly, social democracy is essentially an ideology that aims to achieve socialist goals through a capitalist framework.

That’s my understanding of it too. Social democracy to me, just implies that there is also a commitment to the good of the wider community and not only to individual prosperity. I don’t have any problem with such an ideology as long as that social responsibility is achieved democratically, through consensus and cooperation and not the dictates of a totalitarian government.

Most of this to me is just commonsense rather than some kind of commitment to ideology. Our kids will have a better world to live if not only they, but also their peers, are well educated, healthy, well paid and well housed - it’s really that simple.

Nothing irks me more than political discourse that would subjugate the achieving of that “common good” to some ideological test. If we can achieve this common good in a moral way, who cares what ideological label somebody gives to those policies?! I very passionately couldn’t care less.

 

[Latias]

Whether they are left or right wing is moot.
Whether they had an economic agenda much like that of Bernie Sanders is evidenced by the youtube video presented in this thread that I had been commenting on.

Why mention the YouTube video? Are you trying to insinuate that Bernie Sanders is a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer because he supports similar policies that the Nazis supported? Talk about Godwin’s law!

A quick glance at wiki will give a snap shot of what Bernie Sanders means.
He does appeal to the anti-capitalism of the Occupy Wall street crowd. I don;t think he is a Maoist talking about power coming from the barrel of a gun.

When Matthew Perry arrived in Tokyo Bay, I suppose the Tokugawa Shogunate was well aware of that wisdom. Also the fallen “boxers” in the Boxer Rebellion, unfortunately, learned that lesson to when they fought against soldiers with modern firearms. So, I do not see anything particularly offensive about Mao’s quote. Indeed, Ronald Reagan, a champion of gun control, believed that peace (most likely meaning that adversaries and allies would accede to your interests) could come through military strength.

The evidence presented that I had summed up including things like seventy percent tax rate, widespread redistribution of the wealth, large centralized government, equality as a value-namely material equality and projecting the banks (Wall Street) as the problem.

So is Sweden and other social democracies “socialist” or not? If so, there is nothing insidious about “socialism”, and this would mean that US intervention against leftist countries, such as Chile, was unjustified on humanitarian grounds.

Also, it would conflict with this argument, as it was posted earlier on this thread:

National Socialism was bad they told us because Nationalism was bad. The idea that people viewed race, religion, ethnicity or nationalism as a positive force was misrepresented and denigrated. Hence the idea that religion (but really Christianity) should have no special status and countries should open their borders to all etc etc.

But with the passage of time and the horrors and evil of socialist regimes all over the planet, from Moscow to Romania to Mao’s China to Ethiopia to North Korea to Cambodia it is quite clear that the evil of National Socialism was not so much the Nationalism, but the Socialism and all the realities that always goes with it.

The notion that Sweden is “socialist” would belie the conclusion that was not the ultranationalism of Nazism that made Nazism so odious, but rather its “socialism”.

 

[abucs]

The notion that Sweden is “socialist” would belie the conclusion that was not the ultranationalism of Nazism that made Nazism so odious, but rather its “socialism”.

Except of course that you asked me about the Nordic states and as others above have said, i answered that they are not Socialist.

 

[abucs]

There seems to be different ways to socialism.

1. You can take over by violent means, quickly implement socialist policies in full and use violence against all who object to the state socialism - the Russian model.
2. You can take over by political means and quickly implement de facto socialist policies and use violence and coercion against all who object to the state socialism - the Nazi model.
3. You can participate in democratic politics and look to gradually create the conditions through education, law, media and government which will force society into de facto socialism and then …

As far as i know we haven’t had an example of where the third path has been fully traversed. i think a large part of that is the blowback through traditional culture and the failures of socialist policies which means periodically those who want to implement it are thwarted and thrown out of office or forced to backtrack.

 

[zz912]

Social democracy is compatible with private ownership. Again, look at the countries that Bernie has cited as models, such as in Scandinavia. I think that a “slippery slope” argument against social democracy as leading inexorably to government ownership of all property is not borne out by the facts.

Bernie’s brand of socialism is very familiar to the European-born Popes and bishops, and much of the 20th-century social teaching of the Church, including that of Pope Francis, favors governments that provide education, health care, social welfare programs, etc. – that is, Euro-style social democracies. The Church has been very wary of the U.S., by the way. I think that Bernie stands on very solid ground when he says that the Pope is a socialist (that is, a European-style social democrat).

Scandinavia has a population smaller than the state of Texas. It also has a mostly homogenous population and culture, with very little military spending, and they don’t have a 3rd world country on their border with tens of millions of people flooding the countries. Scandinavia is also propped up by vast stores of oil and geothermal energy. They are a very poor example to use for projecting on to the US.

Second, all of the Scandinavian countries are beginning to show signs of trouble in their welfare states. Rationing in health care and an aging population are guaranteed to wreck it entirely.

As to Bernie Sanders, I asked earlier if anyone could name an industry that he DOESN’T want to heavily regulate or control through the state. No one answered it, and I think I know why.

You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country. - Bernie Sanders

 

[zz912]

Exactly, social democracy is essentially an ideology that aims to achieve socialist goals through a capitalist framework.

So basically, fascism.

 

[zz912]

A quick glance at wiki will give a snap shot of what Bernie Sanders means.
He does appeal to the anti-capitalism of the Occupy Wall street crowd. I don;t think he is a Maoist talking about power coming from the barrel of a gun.

No, today’s socialists a much more incremental in their approach. They always work to push a country left, but without the violent revolution (until they are fully in charge). The incremental approach has worked on the US, which is sad. The violent revolution wouldn’t have worked, but socialists infiltrated colleges, seminaries, media and other places to push the narrative and goals of socialism.

Probably not. He probably goes not further than Obama in that regard, and limits himself to hanging Mao decorations on his Christmas tree.

Obama actually did have Mao decorations on the White House Christmas tree. And Bernie vacationed/honeymooned in the USSR and Cuba if I remember correctly.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/white-house-christmas-decor-featuring-mao-zedong-comes.html

The evidence presented that I had summed up including things like seventy percent tax rate, widespread redistribution of the wealth, large centralized government, equality as a value-namely material equality and projecting the banks (Wall Street) as the problem.

I’d love for them to prove they can successfully run something first before receiving any more power. Before they can implement single payer (which is what they really want), prove you can actually run the VA successfully (you know, without the deaths, exploding costs, wait lists, and rationing). Once you actually manage that, then we can talk.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Obama actually did have Mao decorations on the White House Christmas tree. And Bernie vacationed/honeymooned in the USSR and Cuba if I remember correctly.

“Well, that’s proof of communist leanings! What further evidence do we need?” (…tears his garment…)

 

[zz912]

“Well, that’s proof of communist leanings! What further evidence do we need?” (…tears his garment…)

So you’re equating Obama and Sanders with Jesus. Interesting.

 

[ChristianDude]

So basically, fascism.

No, not at all.

 

[Darryl1958]

]Why mention the YouTube video? Are you trying to insinuate that Bernie Sanders is a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer because he supports similar policies that the Nazis supported? Talk about Godwin’s law!

Well, it was posted, and I chose to view it and comment on it. The topic had already been raised long before entered into that line of conversation. It was not me that introduced this line, so blame yourself for Godwin’s law. Don’t blame me for commenting on something that already existed in the conversation before I joined in.

I am not sure why you are even addressing me, since you are all over the place from kid’s cartoons to Boxer rebellions, and everything in fact except for the fact that Bernie Sanders vision of socialism has a lot in common with the Nazi **economic **vision introduced into 1930’s Austria.
And I suppose that the youtube video was posted because people were arguing that the Nazi program was not socialism. The facts support that it was a socialist economic vision in very similar ways to the Bernie Sanders program is socialist.
Where have I said that Bernie Sanders is a Nazi sympathizer. I can show you where I said pretty much the opposite.
Not that it matters. You seem to be much more interested in listening to yourself that to actually making a response to my actual posts anyway.