Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Project Veritas has been exposing communists in the Sanders campaign, but few seem to care. Perhaps because this is only shocking to people who've had their heads buried in the sand for years. Perhaps because the impeachment trial has dominated the news cycle. Perhaps because CNN would rather smear Sanders as a woman-hater than a commie-lover. Whatever the reasons for not caring, it's still a fact that Sanders attracts and employs communists, and communists are the archenemy of individualism and capitalism. The Democrat Party, and therefore a major part of the American political establishment, is under assault from this hammer and sickle-waving enemy. If they lose to these so-called Democratic Socialists, what then? Half the country will be under the power of anti-American Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It's a pretty weak assault if they aren't even controlling the narrative. 

If the non-socialist Dems don't grow a backbone, they'll be toppled by a light wind. Bernie doesn't care about the narrative. He cares about votes. People vote. Not stories. He needs his radical base to primary the Establishment and make him the popular choice at the convention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People vote for narratives, whether they are true or false doesn't matter here. I get what you're saying, but votes in the abstract don't mean anything because there are an infinite number of reasons to vote for someone besides strictly support. 

That you find some communists in the ranks of various political campaigns isn't particularly interesting or concerning. It would be interesting if somebody was listening to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

People vote for narratives, whether they are true or false doesn't matter here.

Of course the truth matters. And in cases where people don't know the truth firsthand, such as in this case with Warren and Sanders disputing what was said in a private conversation, people judge who's telling the truth based on their characters as individuals with histories of public statements and actions. And Sanders wins that battle of character, because he doesn't have a reputation of being a liar. So people vote for people in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think that the distinction I was making was too subtle for you, but I guess it was.

People generally make decisions in the context of narratives that they believe to be true. Even if you were to say that a communist is factually wrong, it doesn't make a difference if the person listening in thought that you were factually wrong and the communist was factually correct. The communist must provide some narrative to accept as true or false in order to make some difference politically. If there is no narrative to grab onto, or no one is listening to the narrative, that means there is nothing anyone is using to judge that person's beliefs as true or false. 

The word narrative is not a pejorative here, and I am not using it to connote a fiction. If I asked you who you want to vote for and why, you probably will include some character traits of the person. But any research in anything but modern politics shows that the more dynamic convincing and skillful politicians make use of narratives. 

On 1/23/2020 at 12:39 PM, MisterSwig said:

So people vote for people in the end.

When has that ever happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
On 1/23/2020 at 9:39 AM, MisterSwig said:

So people vote for people in the end.

When has that ever happened?

It's how most people operate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's your point? I already acknowledged that you (and therefore anyone else) may give character- based reasons to like a candidate. If you press on him more, he would say something about some kind of narrative, that Bernie fits into it better. 

I registered Democrat in order to vote for Bernie in the primary back in 2016 because while I thought he was a better person than Trump or Hillary, I thought the narrative he promoted and the people around him was most compatible with me than any other candidate. Contrary to what people may say, you know that political trends involve various narratives that people take on, and then select the people that fit into the narrative. Sometimes people vote on grounds of just the candidate and their character traits and not any wider political system of thought, but when that happens, the candidates don't last very long and don't have much power to do anything.

That goes back to the main point: the Communists in the ranks of Bernie's campaign have no power to do anything concerning, nor are they part of the narrative of his campaign. 

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

That goes back to the main point: the Communists in the ranks of Bernie's campaign have no power to do anything concerning, nor are they part of the narrative of his campaign. 

If we are talking narratives, would you agree that Bernie is working with a changed definition of Socialism? There has to be some respect for what words mean.

The problem is that in twenty years, we will have "Jewish Nazi's". We ask them well, what is that? and we will hear "I a good kind of Nazi. Ones who don't believe in killing Jews, we believe in social security and a booming economy and cool black uniforms".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I registered Democrat in order to vote for Bernie in the primary back in 2016 because while I thought he was a better person than Trump or Hillary, I thought the narrative he promoted and the people around him was most compatible with me than any other candidate.

Voting for Sanders is plain wrong for a principled capitalist. It's not even worth debating.

If Sanders wins, we are in big trouble. I don't see Republicans going quietly into that dark, socialist nightmare. And if Trump declares martial law and tries to put the boot to Democratic Socialists, who could blame him? Are we supposed to watch peacefully while socialists gain federal power in America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

If Sanders wins, we are in big trouble. I don't see Republicans going quietly into that dark, socialist nightmare. And if Trump declares martial law and tries to put the boot to Democratic Socialists, who could blame him? Are we supposed to watch peacefully while socialists gain federal power in America?

You are demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. I mean, you've constructed a fear of socialists, which is blown out of proportion, but nevertheless, it is silly to say that you aren't voting for some kind of narrative. 

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

would you agree that Bernie is working with a changed definition of Socialism?

Not really, mostly people just don't understand what socialism is, very often confusing it with communism and treating as the same. To say more about why I would have voted for him back then, it was because he offered some kind of narrative about power structure and could get people to question that more, especially with regard to social policy. 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

That goes back to the main point: the Communists in the ranks of Bernie's campaign have no power to do anything concerning, nor are they part of the narrative of his campaign. 

Do you really think it would be likely to remain that way if Bernie became President Sanders?  What kind of federal judiciary and Supreme Court nominations would he make?  Do you think it would be worth it to have America endure an avowed socialist as President if it gets Trump out of office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You are demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. I mean, you've constructed a fear of socialists, which is blown out of proportion

Is that because there's no basis in factual history to fear a socialist revolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Not really, mostly people just don't understand what socialism is, very often confusing it with communism and treating as the same.

Can you elaborate on that. What is your definition of Socialism and its difference with Communism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Nothing any different than Wikipedia would suggest. 

Sure enough, it means multiple things, some of them contradictory.  That would be one explanation for why people don't understand it. But there is a common thread in most of the definitions. It is the opposite of respecting individual rights. 

Looking at Wikipedia under Socialism, there seems to be 5 or more types. Collectivization, Communism as a goal, Democratic socialism, Social democracy,  Socialism with Chinese characteristics. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

They include "social democracy" in the topic but they indicate that "social democracy" is capitalism.

Then the definition of Democratic socialism (seemingly the Bernie type): Democratic socialism is a type of socialism achieved through democracy. The main method of democratic socialism is changing society through slow reform rather than a quick revolution. Democratic socialism usually wants to gradually reform capitalism, similarly to social democracy, but these reforms won't stop until there is no more capitalism. Democratic socialism also usually entails all businesses being operated as worker-owned cooperatives.

This Bernie type Socialism, is the actual monster that we claim it is, there is no misunderstanding or misinformation causing that condemnation.

Pure democracy is socialism in the sense that if you can vote yourself free food, a house, a car, why not vote for it. Any individual's rights can be voted away. Pure Democracy does not exonerate socialism, it is a main ingredient of the poison.

Maybe some people think that they can allow Bernie to win and after many years, similar to Sweden when the Taxes go up to 130 percent, the system can be voted down. Bernie's popularity seems to be due to the crony capitalism that exists and which, as a nation, we don't seem to dislodge.

Edited by Easy Truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

This Bernie type Socialism, is the actual monster that we claim it is, there is no misunderstanding or misinformation causing that condemnation.

Bernie Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but more accurately he is a fascist. Like described here fascism permits private ownership of the means of production, but subject to extensive control by government. "As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer." "Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms." State control is paramount.

This captures BS's proposal for health insurance. He wants to eliminate private health insurance by the state taking over all health insurance, akin to Stalin taking over agriculture in the Soviet Union. If BS gets his way, the planning board, which already exists -- it's called Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services -- will have much greater power. 

As I recall, the Wikipedia article on fascism only weeks ago had more about its economic policy akin to the above. However, apparently somebody removed it. 

Edited by merjet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

That would be one explanation for why people don't understand it.

But that article was easy to understand. It makes very clear the difference between saying someone is a communist versus saying they are a socialist, right in the communism as a goal portion. 

12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Is that because there's no basis in factual history to fear a socialist revolution?

That is correct. The revolutions you are thinking about are either communist or anarchist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

But that article was easy to understand.

Easy to understand is one thing. Easy to discern what you mean by socialism is still not the case.

5 hours ago, merjet said:

Bernie Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but more accurately he is a fascist.

Not that I disagree, but isn't what we already have some sort of fascism? The phrase "participatory fascism" is gaining more traction. https://blog.independent.org/2012/10/30/once-more-with-feeling-our-system-is-not-socialism-but-participatory-fascism/

But ultimately, Socialism can be considered to be some form or subset of fascism.

Bernie basically promotes "more" fascism. But then Trump also has some fascist tendencies too. 

The unfortunate thing is that fascism and socialism get power and support through democratic means and there is so much pride in that "we are a democracy" aka. mob rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The revolutions you are thinking about are either communist or anarchist. 

You have no idea what I'm thinking about. That much is clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 5:58 PM, Eiuol said:

...mostly people just don't understand what socialism is, very often confusing it with communism and treating as the same.

Are you taking Sanders for somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about? Or are you trying to argue that I don't know? Also, you sound like you disagree with Rand here.

Quote

Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.

 

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 11:29 PM, Easy Truth said:

This Bernie type Socialism, is the actual monster that we claim it is, there is no misunderstanding or misinformation causing that condemnation.

Yes, and I'll add that the difference between a socialist revolution and a socialist reformation is that we should fear the latter more, because it indicates the widespread popularity of socialism, as when Germany voted in Hitler. And this means little or no hope for significant resistance.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Or are you trying to argue that I don't know?

Yes, I am including you when I said most people. 

23 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Also, you sound like you disagree with Rand

Yeah. I disagree with the example she gave about Nazi Germany, because I would argue that it was implemented by force. "It's only a matter of time" is a pretty empty thing to say, because entirely depends on how you respond. It says nothing about how threatening a particular socialist is. You are very authoritarian in your desired response to socialism, which is much the same as the authoritarian governments in South America in the recent past. 

By the way, you are confirming what I said when I said people vote for narratives. At the very least, you are showing that you don't vote for the person, you vote for the narrative. I'm saying that even Joe Rogan does this. I do this. You'd have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump versus Bernie Sanders is going to be like the Nixon vs McGovern blowout but a bigger blowout because Trump is actually a great president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...