but still it's interesting that the world has lost so much of it's scare factor in 2016

a good opinion of him as does Chomsky
He's a new dealer in my book but
it should be a good interview on redditt

... that Bernie is not a "socialist"? I have been a "socialist" since 1972, and, frankly, socialism has many variations. Do you rule out other concepts of socialism on sectarian grounds? Or do you define "socialism" as having no oxygen for private enterprise at all? The "realpolitik" here suggests that Bernie's program, if instituted, would be the largest move toward socialism since the New Deal, if not in all American history.

The main connective tissue between all forms of socialism is social ownership.. Which Bernie does absolutely not believe in.

"Socialism is a variety of social and economic systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership

"Misuse of the term

See also: Socialized medicine

Particularly in the United States, the term "socialization" has been mistakenly used to refer to any state or government-operated industry or service (the proper term for such being either nationalization or municipalization). It has also been used to mean any tax-funded programs, whether privately run or government run. The term "socialized" is usually used in a pejorative sense, most commonly in reference to publicly funded health care programs."

... do you say that Bernie doesn't believe in social ownership? You definitely sound like someone who believes socialism means denying oxygen to any form of private enterprise. You're buying the old "revolutionary socialist vs. Social Democrat" divide. I would only point out Marx and Engels observed that the institutions of the new system are birthed in the belly of the old. In other words, the institutions of capitalist society aren't going to totally die off with the revolution. Social and economic institutions, including ownership, will be radically transformed. But, ultimately, even Marx and Engels knew there would be a rather lengthy and imperfect transition period to the higher form of society. If you are expecting that that transformation will be quick, you're in for some disappointment. It seems to me that Bernie is calling on us to push socialism farther than it's ever gone in the U.S. That, in and of itself, would be an amazing accomplishment. I am not even saying it's possible in the short run to go that far. But, for the moment, the word "socialism" is re-entering the mainstream dialogue in a positive way. That is an insufficient, but critical step in the process. I wouldn't deny him the socialist mantle.

Believe it means that.

But Bernie has directly said he doesn't believe in collective ownership and instead references the Democratic Socialism in Scandinavian countries which also does not believe in social ownership.

The more common term for that is the Nordic Model:

"Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[6] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade."

That's what he espouses which does not have social ownership.

I am well aware however that private enterprise which is socially owned is not an anathema to capitalism.

... but might I recommend - in a comradely way - this book:

https://books.google.com/books/about/One_Hundred_Years_of_Socialism.html?id=MZ1_AgAAQBAJ&source=kp_cover&hl=en

It's a very well written history of Western European socialism since the Second International.

I appreciate the recommendation and will 100% check it out.

And likewise. It's always good to have a nice reasonable conversation about interesting things

... a long time DSA socialist, and in my time I've known all sorts of people on the Left. Interpretations of what "socialism" really is are so many and divergent, I find it very hard to pin the fate of the word on any single aspect. My guess is that socialism will only find its truest meaning and form AFTER the revolution. I'd like to think I can live that long ... but I have serious doubts.

That I am a but pedantic about it, but only because if it means absolutely everything then it means absolutely nothing.

Plus I do think we have all sorts of good words we can use to spread clarity and avoid confusion.

And when I look at the right wing sites they genuinely think Sanders is trying to nationalize companies like Google and Apple, etc etc... Heck even some Hillary supporters push that sort of fear driven propaganda... So to the end of avoiding unnecessary hardship I'd prefer a more rigid definition, in a selfish way

It is a rainbow though and Polisci and a euro won't even get you a Lucozade.

I've seen fights started over whose version of "The Internationale" used the correct lyrics!

The truth is -- in so far as nationalization of industry is concerned -- that it solves very little. Even Marx new this when he wrote in the Critique of the Gotha Programme" that the initial phase of communism would make the state seem like "the universal capitalist" -- and that it was the task of the revolution to remove the values and ethos of capitalism from publicly owned enterprise. In other words, just simply taking over the means of production means little if it does not change the conditions of production.

And there are all sorts of as alternative models starting to crop up in the West -- different forms of ownership, different forms of worker managed enterprise, that don't fit into any neat and clean category.

I might warn you that even Marx was loathe to describe the socialist future ... from the standpoint of the second half of the 19th Century he felt it either convenient or wise to say that the workers themselves would define the promised land in their own time.

I actually think that most Americans have no problem with the idea of having a business partner, and splitting the work and profits equally. Scaling that up to the point where it's a "thing" that competes with the traditional owner/employee model is a whole different idea though... I know it has worked in a few places, but I'm not sure how Americans en masse would feel about it, per se. But I do think that leaving room for many humans natural desire to compete is probably wise.

I ALSO think that at some point we'll be looking at a radically different version of society though, when abundance creates either a dystopian hellscape or enables us to look past the economic current structures and imperatives we have in place... to that end I personally think that people should be organising internationally to demand something like a universal/guaranteed minimum income... because if people don't drive that conversation corporations and austerity obsessed governments will.

Edward: Try this 1/2 hour BBC documentary from the late Tony Benn. Tony had impeccable socialist credentials, and was a champion of democracy and socialism. Very worth your time.

Thanks!

I am aware of Tony Benn.

If you haven't seen Pandora's Box by Adam Curtis you should consider it. It's very interesting.

Interesting presentation. Great archival footage that you don't see much of anymore. And good insights into the problems faced by the USSR in trying to construct a socialist society. The Soviet model had many, many flaws -- and, I would say that the whole experiment went horribly awry when Lenin died, and Stalin forced Trotsky into exile. I've read several books on and by Lenin, and while I don't agree with the Soviet model, I do believe that had Lenin remained healthy and lived on into the 1930s and 1940s, the Soviet Union might have developed in a far better way.

I think it speaks so well to the problems that "central planning" present... and centralising power...

The archival footage is amazing, and the way it's all strung together is honestly really inspiring, and a piece of art or whatever you wanna call it.

If you enjoyed it, watch Century of the Self - which is why my username is Edward Bernays - it should be required viewing for EVERY SINGLE American.

His documentary about al Qaeda and the politics of fear - The Power of Nightmares - is also hugely powerful, as is his most recent one about Afghanistan... which is also something all Americans should see. That's called Bitter Lake.

Sure just watch the first 5 mins:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hdcji

I watch the Benn thing!

It was really good and interesting! Thanks for that!