If Bernie Sanders is elected POTUS, what are the chances of a coup?

Actually "socialism" as defined by Marx is largely what modern "communism" is considered, as central planning of the economy. "Communism" would be the final stage where there is dissolution of state.

To be fair to Sanders he has defined himself as a Democratic-Socialist in the mode of Scandinavian models who advocates a high degree of regulation of the economy with mixed state involvement.

I will agree though that Sanders isn't a true "socialist" as there actually are very few true socialists anymore.

 

I brought this up in the Feel the Bern thread but I have a suspicion that there is some sort of back room deal between the Clinton Camp and Warren. Warren has been very quiet so far even though she is far more ideologically aligned with Sander's she has had more history with Clinton including working with her blocking bankruptcy reform. Warren has also had some meetings with the Clinton camp in recent years and although it's not public knowledge what was in those it wouldn't surprise me if there is a deal for Warren not to run for a position in a future Clinton Admin..

I fully admit this is just my speculation.

 

Yes in the game of Semantics, I was referring to the commonly accepted vernacular. In Spain when the socialist party runs they don't intend on turning the country into a communist completely state owned nation. If people want to refer to definitions that aren't used anymore except in theoretical discussions then there isn't any point.

If we are talking about actual definitions as practiced, then that's a different story. Only talking about the definitions that are actually in practice are worthy of a discussion in regards to Sanders.

 

Seriously? 0%.

Central planning is a device Bolshevism used, not a society that Marx had envisioned. Even Bolsheviks didn't consider central planning as some kind of ideal -- it was a pragmatic solution to the question of how they could in practice have common ownership and governance of the means of production, one that quickly became a tool of totalitarianism. I think in the US today, we have better tools to realize socialism if we wanted. We have a stock market that is now easily accessed by anyone who wants to invest. We do not have high participation in all sectors of society, but the vehicle for the socialization of the means of production is there. If we could make everyone a stockholder (preferably with well-diversified portfolios), we'd be a socialist country.

 

a democratic socialist is an economic socialist which bernie is not. All u gotta do is google.

 

All you gotta do not is say dumb things like this:

You can put whatever label you want on him, he can put any label he wants on himself, the only thing that matters are what is actual policies are.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-arel/5-ways-democratic-sociali_b_8876476.html

Hopefully this will clear up your confusion

 

"democratic socialism" sounds an awful lot like "social democracy"

 

I will have to brush up on my Communist Manifesto but from my recollection "socialism" is seen as an intermediate step that would require massive state involvement including central planning to address the inequalities between the classes. Eventually the differences between the classes would be done away and a true communist society would arise as means of participation, production and consumption were equal among all removing the need for a state.

I agree that Sanders isn't advocating something along those lines but if not in practice in rhetoric much of what he says comes from or is at least very similar to Marxist views. Much of his standard stump speech is a call for class revolution and it seems very clear that he views not just the economy but much of how American society as a class struggle between moneyed interests and the rest of society.

That isn't to say there isn't a class struggle but I think it is undeniable ties between Sanders' rhetoric and traditional Marxist views.

 

So he is a social democratic?

 

I guess I'm trying to draw a distinction between Marxist ideals and Marxist procedures or practices. In American discourse, people will distill Marxism down to an unfavorable view of the outmoded practices of Marxist-Leninism and dismiss the ideals along with the practices in an exercise of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yeah, the Bolsheviks effed up. They built a totalitarian state with an inefficient economy. And yeah, central planning is primitive and unworkable and dumb. We are much smarter than that now. But, there is a conversation going on right now in the US about the power of capital and the power of labor, the distribution of wealth, and the distribution of risk where Marx is still relevant, though we aren't talking about him or Marxism. And really there's no need to talk about Marxism either. It is overcome with baggage anyhow. We should though talk about the bargaining power of capital and labor, who carries the risk and what kind and how much, and how well those people and everyone else should be compensated for wearing the risk. That's where Sanders is challenging the status quo. We have some kind of proxy argument about what is socialism and what is democratic socialism to divine what Sanders might believe or do, when he's right there telling us what he believes and what he'll do. In terms of risk and reward, I think it's fair to say Sanders thinks the rich are overcompensated for the risks they are exposed to. I don't think we need to look back 100 years to put that into context.

 

I don't know, and I don't think it really matters. Just saying those two sound alike.

 

Im not confused. Bernie Sanders and his fans are not socialists. They dont know what that means. love that you use the huffingtonpost definition of a democratic socialist and not every other definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Democratic Socialism is normal socialism. Bernie does not support the above statement. If you don't know what 'social ownership of the means of production' means, then feel free to ask. It will scare the **** out of you.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/11/12/2016-election-needs-a-radical-but-bernie

 

The difference between a democratic socialist and a social democrat is akin to the difference between a horse doctor and a doctor horse.

 

I still do not think he is going to beat out Hillary, I would vote for Hillary instead of him. If he did win, nothing will get done, he won't even have much support from other democrats.

 

You seem confused because you keep referring to Socialism which is irrelevant to everything. You also keep referring to Bernie and "his fans", in relation to what they believe/think/know, which is also irrelevant.

Not using it as a "definition", because the definition is again....irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what the underlying concepts are of his belief system. That is the meaning of whatever you want to label him as. Socialist, Democratic Socialist, Social Democrat, Communist, Progressive, Radical, Extremist, etc.

You, in your confused state, seem to want to take the traditional attributes of any of those labels, from the definition, and say that is what Bernie believes in. This is a logical breakdown.

The only relevant pieces of info here are:
1.) The article I posted which correctly describes his beliefs / approach.
2.) The fact that there doesn't seem to be one label which encapsalates his approach.

 

Now you are trying to change your tune. Your argument now is that he isnt a democratic Socialist, but that doesn't matter (I dont disagree with that). Also your article tries to define democratic socialism (very very poorly). Apparently your article thinks democratic socialism is w/e Bernie believes.

Also stop trying to claim Democratic socialism is different than socialism. Its not. It just means Socialism that is voted on by the people.

 

Now I get it

 

Pure socialism is garbage.

Pure capitalism is garbage.

This is why a mixture of the two is necessary.