• DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Bernie believes in the eradication of capitalism, he’s a socialist working in a fucked over Overton window that means the best policies he can argue for would fall under social democracy at best.

      Which, to be very clear, makes him a raging commie by American political standards.

      The only people who argue he’s a capitalist are people that think socialism is when poor.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          He specifically describes himself as a democratic socialist instead of a social democrat but I also haven’t read the book so feel free to quote an excerpt from it saying he thinks the capitalist model is the only viable one.

            • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I’m about as far-left as they come. I want to understand.

              What would it mean in terms of policy to “call for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production”? Would you prefer something closer to the Meidner Plan? Because that’s further left than Bernie’s plan but could also be considered part of the “Nordic Model”.

              As far as I can tell, this kind of rhetoric stems from a lack of understanding of the economic similarities between the “Nordic Model” and Chinese-style communism.

              Socialism can develop differently in different countries. As such I believe that it’s better to engage in international solidarity, rather than nit pick differences.

              But, I’m open to being wrong.

              • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                As far as I can tell, this kind of rhetoric stems from a lack of understanding of the economic similarities between the “Nordic Model” and Chinese-style communism.

                One might argue that they are both “mixed economies,” but they are very different.

                The Nordic countries are imperial core countries that benefit from neocolonialism. They are bourgeois democracies, meaning that the state enforces the dominance of the capitalist class over the working class. Because of this, something like a Meidner Plan, which proposes slowly eliminating the capitalist class, will never be allowed to happen in these states.

                In China, the capitalist class is not in control of the state, though some limited capitalism is being allowed in the short term, with a plan to eventually eliminate it altogether. And China is not an imperialist state (despite NATOpedia’s false claims of “debt trap diplomacy”).

                Gabriel Rockhill - How The Left Should Analyze the Rise of a Multipolar World, China, Russia & BRICS

                Socialism can develop differently in different countries.

                This is true, though they can’t develop in any old way they’d like. All of the Western European attempts at socialism in the 20th century failed. All anarchist attempts have failed. The only successful ones so far have rested on a Marxist–Leninist foundation.

        • Iceblade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          As a Swede, what he’s been advocating for doesn’t sound like the nordic model to me.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      Liberalism actually has a lot of definitions. It is a classical philosophical concept, a modern political philosophical concept, a term to describe a lower value of risk aversion, a term to mean supplied in abundance, and (here) a political science term used to describe an entire half of a relative political spectrum whose center point is determined by the specific body politic being measured. So, big shooter, no you are mistaken at a very basic level. All nations have both a liberal and conservative spectrum within their own political system. And, just to raise your level of education on the subject, you know what? Even within those subgroups, there is a liberal and conservative divide based on the relative ideology of the subgroup. And fun fact, you can yet still divide those subgroups of subgroups — this is a large part of how the phenomenon of group polarization happens.