Opinion of Bernie Sanders' buzz phrase: "Billionaire Class"

[H. Ross Peron]

Trying to play both sides, engaging in communist class warfare while attempting to reassure the averages that he's not talking about "them". In the end, they always are.

First they came for the billionaires...

Then the millionaires, then the "elites", then the academics...

Yes, that's usually what happens in Communism. And at some point, the nice old man who thought he could keep Communism in line this time is usually taken out too.

Sanders is not a communist though? Go ask TNF about that (if you're willing to sit through  at least an hour of laughter).

No, he's a socialist. I'd just really rather we didn't go down that path, because guys like him embolden the Communists and often lead to their rise. Not that I think that'll happen here, but that's my main issue with his rhetoric.

That's as silly as saying espousing Revisionist Zionist rhetoric will lead to the rise of Kahanism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Trying to play both sides, engaging in communist class warfare while attempting to reassure the averages that he's not talking about "them". In the end, they always are.

First they came for the billionaires...

Then the millionaires, then the "elites", then the academics...

Yes, that's usually what happens in Communism. And at some point, the nice old man who thought he could keep Communism in line this time is usually taken out too.

Haha, keep it up, it's hilarious.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Bit silly, like all sloganeering.

[politicus]

Trying to play both sides, engaging in communist class warfare while attempting to reassure the averages that he's not talking about "them". In the end, they always are.

First they came for the billionaires...

Then the millionaires, then the "elites", then the academics...

Yes, that's usually what happens in Communism. And at some point, the nice old man who thought he could keep Communism in line this time is usually taken out too.

Sanders is not a communist though? Go ask TNF about that (if you're willing to sit through  at least an hour of laughter).

No, he's a socialist. I'd just really rather we didn't go down that path, because guys like him embolden the Communists and often lead to their rise. Not that I think that'll happen here, but that's my main issue with his rhetoric.

Sanders is a Social Democrat, not an actual Socialist in the "lets take over the means of production" sense.

I have always been a bit curious as to why he chose to identify as a Democratic Socialist instead of trying to promote the term Social Democracy.

[TNF]

Unclear and convoluted. The phrase he should be using is capitalist class, but that scares liberals, and thus he's going to try and make a distinction between "good capitalists" and "bad capitalists," as he's doing here.

The idea of bashing capitalism scares 95% of Americans, TNF.  It's essentially our national religion.  I know you want to establish a completely different economic system in America but you mistake a politician's literal inability to say these things without completely forfeiting their career with their character.  People don't even know what socialism is so it starts with education.  

Kshama Sawant says the kinds of things I'm saying in this thread and is the most popular member of the Seattle City Council. Not only that, but she said those things and helped win a $15 an hour minimum wage in Seattle, a move that inspired San Francisco to do the same thing and that has helped inspire other struggles for a living wage among low wage workers. Making direct appeals on the issue of class, and clearly defining who the enemy is, is far more effective than "good billionaire, bad billionaire," which liberals and reformists like Bernie Sanders have been trying and failing with for years.

Hell, even the idea of the 99% vs. the 1%, which is itself murky and problematic in a lot of ways, in a better descriptor of the actual division of society into classes than what Sanders is going on about here.

C'mon man... you can't expect the rhetoric that works in Seattle and San Fransisco to work elsewhere.  And you really don't think Bernie is making a direct appeal on the issue of class by saying things like; "If We Don't Overturn Citizens United, Congress Will Become Paid Employees of the Billionaire Class"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/sanders-to-senate-if-we-dont-overturn-citizens-united-the-congress-will-become-paid-employees-of-the-billionaire-class_b_6918468.html

I'm becoming convinced that you shift the goalposts further to the left no matter what any American politician says.  Sometimes you have to look at progress as a good thing.  A first down is still good even if it's not a touchdown. 

The problem is that Congress is already the paid lackeys of the capitalists, the public is aware of that (even if they don't have the right language to articulate it just yet), and so making the kinds of silly rhetorical gestures that, unless Bernie is elected, they'll become 'paid employees of the billionaires' is just hot air. The public knows that the rich run the country. Why do you think that the public approval rating of Congress is in single digits?

I don't have any particular love for any American politicians. You interpret that as me moving the goalposts, but I'm really not, because you're blind to what is actually going on. You think that a politician saying something mean about bankers is a step in the right direction, regardless of whether or not that's followed up by actual political action or not. You're satisfied with rhetoric. I'm not. If I were I'd be a Democrat.

[TNF]

Unclear and convoluted. The phrase he should be using is capitalist class, but that scares liberals, and thus he's going to try and make a distinction between "good capitalists" and "bad capitalists," as he's doing here.

Are you putting small business owners (I'm talking about real small business here, not what the Republicans call "small business") in the same category as Bill Gates, then?

Do small businesses not make a profit from the exploitation of the labor of their employees? If the answer is yes, small business owners are still capitalists. Sure, they're not big time capitalists, and I wouldn't necessarily put them in the same class category as capitalists (I'd make a distinction that they're members of the petty bourgeoisie, rather than the big bourgeoisie, of course), but that doesn't negate the fact that the actual problem at hand is not billionaires or millionaires, but capitalism itself. You can go on and on about how terrible the Koch Brothers are or how monopolies should be held to account, but if you take on the Kochs or bust up AT&T without busting up capitalism, there will be another Koch Brothers and another AT&T because that's how capitalism works.

My issue here is with confusing who the actual enemy is. Sanders is doing the public a disservice when he, as a self-proclaimed socialist, does not indict capitalism as the problem. He's essentially reinforcing liberal ideas about how we can continue going about our business once the 'bad apples' have been removed and certain policies reformed, which contradicts the entire history of the 20th Century. We tried busting trusts, regulating the economy, and setting up a welfare state to reform the excesses of capitalism. Trusts reformed, regulations were either tailor-fit to help business or agencies were captured by businesses and then undermined, and the welfare state has been gutted. Don't you think that the failure of those policies warrants something else being tried in the 21st Century? Something that makes it impossible for regulations to be undermined, trusts to be formed in the first place, and the welfare state to be undone?

For the record, I agree that Sanders' claim to being a Socialist is incorrect. I always took it more as a provocation aimed to combat the negative connotation that this word carries in US politics, than as the expression of a genuine ideological commitment. Still, he has a better claim at being a Socialist than, say, François Hollande.

All I can really say is that, since I'm not an orthodox Marxist, I don't view ownership of the means of production as the main issue to be contested in the modern economic system. It is one issue, certainly. But ultimately, what matters isn't how wealth is produced, but in whose hands it ends up going. Small business owners are net losers in this regards.

I would agree with you as far as Sanders/Hollande are concerned. Sanders I'd regard as a reformist liberal but he's still to the left of pretty much every leader of a social democratic party in Europe, but that comes in part with not having a chance to actually govern. Sanders fits well within the right-wing tradition of American social democracy/the left edge of progressive liberalism, though. He's kind of a latter day Bob La Follette, but obviously far to his right because Bob La Follette ran for President calling for the nationalization of large parts of the economy.

If you change the way wealth is distributed without changing the way its produced, you're still giving the lion's share of wealth to the owners of the means of production. You're reproducing inequality and allowing the wealthy to accumulate, to buy politicians and political parties, and reverse your redistribution efforts. That's what happened in every major democracy, starting in 1979 and continuing on to the present (although of course the beginnings of neoliberalism can be traced further back, to the postwar attack in all countries on radical labor unions). How do you effectively prevent the rich from undoing your social programs while leaving in their hands the means by which they can do so, Tony? I'm genuinely curious as to how you think its possible to allow the wealthy to continue to own the means of production and maintain a redistributive state apparatus.

[TNF]

And as far as Flo is concerned, I won't waste my time arguing with a strawman of my positions. Where have I ever advocated that the "government run everything"? I've always been fairly open about my support for community ownership and worker ownership, rather than state ownership, aside from the essential elements of the economy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Stringent and comprehensive regulations of political parties and the media can effectively neuter the influence of money in politics. Of course, their implementation would have to be carefully watched, but this is not an impossible task. Many countries, while not perfect, do a far better job than the United States in this regards. I would go much further, of course (ban all private donations to political parties, have the State entirely fund electoral campaigns), but regardless, it's pretty ludicrous to claim that the American situation is an inevitable product of capitalism.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have always been a bit curious as to why he chose to identify as a Democratic Socialist instead of trying to promote the term Social Democracy.

Probably because to American socialists of his generation 'social democrat' denoted the disciples of Max Shachtman.

[politicus]

I have always been a bit curious as to why he chose to identify as a Democratic Socialist instead of trying to promote the term Social Democracy.

Probably because to American socialists of his generation 'social democrat' denoted the disciples of Max Shachtman.

Makes sense.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Definite FF