5 ms·

Bernie Sanders seems to be quite popular as an openly socialist presidential candidate, so it cannot be said that it is practically taboo to discuss the suppose

Bernie Sanders seems to be quite popular as an openly socialist presidential candidate, so it cannot be said that it is practically taboo to discuss the supposed shortcomings of capitalism in the US.

dibujante 10y ago
He's not really a socialist, though. He's a social democrat, which is a much less extreme and more reasonable political position. It just seems extreme in the US because Americans tend to catastrophise their political orientations. "You think that the speed limit should be 65? I can't stand to breathe the same air as someone who thinks that 60 isn't the right speed limit."
- pjlegato 10y ago
  Sanders has described himself as a "socialist" on numerous occasions. In any case, bickering over the validity of different schemes of leftist political ontology was not the point. The point is that OP's belief that criticizing capitalism is somehow taboo in the US is factually wrong. Sanders indisputably roundly and frequently criticizes capitalism to anyone who will listen, and he's quite popular as a presidential candidate for exactly that reason. A lot of leftists, particularly non-American leftists, seem to imagine the US is some sort of Ayn Randian fantasyland where everyone is rabidly pro-capitalist and any views to the contrary are self-censored as a taboo. Sanders' candidacy (among many other data points) amply falsifies this misconception.
  - dibujante 10y ago
    Well, then Sanders is wrong. Socialism is state ownership of "the means of production". Socialism is planned economy. Socialism is the USSR. Sanders' criticism of capitalism can be entirely adequately paraphrased as "the safety net is inadequate". Americans (and pretty much all Westerners) are generally uniformly pro-capitalist. A debate over the extent to which the present capitalist system should be regulated is being presented as a debate over whether or not a capitalist system should be practiced at all. It's nonsense. Regulated capitalism is a fait accompli and no one is challenging it because it works.
    - pjlegato 10y ago
      Obviously Sanders uses a different definition for "socialist" than you do. What makes your definition correct and his wrong? An appeal to authority fallacy? He can produce just as many "authorities" with equally fancy credentials who agree with his definition and say yours is wrong. Part of the problem with socialism is that every particular faction thinks their own pet definition of "socialism" is the One True Correct Socialism, and all others are merely ignorant heretics.
      - dibujante 10y ago
        People disagree on a lot of things, like the age of the earth. Are all of those viewpoints valid? My definition of "socialist" derives from original usage, is concise, and distinct from any definition of capitalist economy (regulated or otherwise). It's the right usage because of its historical correctness and its current utility. Sure, you can redefine "socialism". You can redefine any word you want. But if you then apply that term in its historical context, e.g. "criticism of capitalism is now mainstream", then you're committing a fallacy of false equivalency.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > My definition of "socialist" derives from original usage It may "derive" from the original usage, but it both more restrictive than the original usage and more restrictive than the term has been used by large bodies of self-described socialists since the 19th Century. > and distinct from any definition of capitalist economy (regulated or otherwise). Your use of "regulated capitalism" to refer to the modern mixed economy is, BTW, inconsistent with original definition of the term. > It's the right usage because of its historical correctness and its current utility. No, its the wrong use, because of its historical incorrectness, and then fact that, insofar as there is utility in having a label for the category you want to apply the label to, there is already are broadly accepted terms for that group that don't require your ahistoric narrowing of "socialism" ("state socialism", "planned economy"). > Sure, you can redefine "socialism". But if you then apply that term in its historical context, e.g. "criticism of capitalism is now mainstream", then you're committing a fallacy of false equivalency. Using terms in their correct, historical way (which your use of "socialism" doesn't, though that's somewhat tangential to the example you offer here, which doesn't even use "socialism", "criticism of capitalism" is decidedly mainstream in the US today, where the status quo is a mixed economy, and both social democracy as a stepping stone to socialism (on the left) and a return to capitalism (on the right) are among the alternatives with some mainstream traction (along with other tweaks to the mixed economy that neither move substantially to social democracy nor substantially back to capitalism.)

Bernie Sanders seems to be quite popular as an openly socialist presidential candidate, so it cannot be said that it is practically taboo to discuss the supposed shortcomings of capitalism in the US.

dibujante 10y ago

He's not really a socialist, though. He's a social democrat, which is a much less extreme and more reasonable political position. It just seems extreme in the US because Americans tend to catastrophise their political orientations. "You think that the speed limit should be 65? I can't stand to breathe the same air as someone who thinks that 60 isn't the right speed limit."

pjlegato 10y ago
Sanders has described himself as a "socialist" on numerous occasions. In any case, bickering over the validity of different schemes of leftist political ontology was not the point. The point is that OP's belief that criticizing capitalism is somehow taboo in the US is factually wrong. Sanders indisputably roundly and frequently criticizes capitalism to anyone who will listen, and he's quite popular as a presidential candidate for exactly that reason. A lot of leftists, particularly non-American leftists, seem to imagine the US is some sort of Ayn Randian fantasyland where everyone is rabidly pro-capitalist and any views to the contrary are self-censored as a taboo. Sanders' candidacy (among many other data points) amply falsifies this misconception.
- dibujante 10y ago
  Well, then Sanders is wrong. Socialism is state ownership of "the means of production". Socialism is planned economy. Socialism is the USSR. Sanders' criticism of capitalism can be entirely adequately paraphrased as "the safety net is inadequate". Americans (and pretty much all Westerners) are generally uniformly pro-capitalist. A debate over the extent to which the present capitalist system should be regulated is being presented as a debate over whether or not a capitalist system should be practiced at all. It's nonsense. Regulated capitalism is a fait accompli and no one is challenging it because it works.
  - pjlegato 10y ago
    Obviously Sanders uses a different definition for "socialist" than you do. What makes your definition correct and his wrong? An appeal to authority fallacy? He can produce just as many "authorities" with equally fancy credentials who agree with his definition and say yours is wrong. Part of the problem with socialism is that every particular faction thinks their own pet definition of "socialism" is the One True Correct Socialism, and all others are merely ignorant heretics.
    - dibujante 10y ago
      People disagree on a lot of things, like the age of the earth. Are all of those viewpoints valid? My definition of "socialist" derives from original usage, is concise, and distinct from any definition of capitalist economy (regulated or otherwise). It's the right usage because of its historical correctness and its current utility. Sure, you can redefine "socialism". You can redefine any word you want. But if you then apply that term in its historical context, e.g. "criticism of capitalism is now mainstream", then you're committing a fallacy of false equivalency.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > My definition of "socialist" derives from original usage It may "derive" from the original usage, but it both more restrictive than the original usage and more restrictive than the term has been used by large bodies of self-described socialists since the 19th Century. > and distinct from any definition of capitalist economy (regulated or otherwise). Your use of "regulated capitalism" to refer to the modern mixed economy is, BTW, inconsistent with original definition of the term. > It's the right usage because of its historical correctness and its current utility. No, its the wrong use, because of its historical incorrectness, and then fact that, insofar as there is utility in having a label for the category you want to apply the label to, there is already are broadly accepted terms for that group that don't require your ahistoric narrowing of "socialism" ("state socialism", "planned economy"). > Sure, you can redefine "socialism". But if you then apply that term in its historical context, e.g. "criticism of capitalism is now mainstream", then you're committing a fallacy of false equivalency. Using terms in their correct, historical way (which your use of "socialism" doesn't, though that's somewhat tangential to the example you offer here, which doesn't even use "socialism", "criticism of capitalism" is decidedly mainstream in the US today, where the status quo is a mixed economy, and both social democracy as a stepping stone to socialism (on the left) and a return to capitalism (on the right) are among the alternatives with some mainstream traction (along with other tweaks to the mixed economy that neither move substantially to social democracy nor substantially back to capitalism.)