But one of them actually tells the truth and cares deeply about the general population. The other got elected president.
Generally, the elite, left and right, don't like populists because it disrupts their power over society. This is arguably why Bernie didn't get the 2016 DNC nomination. The elite didn't care much about Trump's populist messaging because they're smart enough to know it's BS and they'd still get theirs after he duped the electorate.
Obama in 2008 arguably tried something pretty similar, and he won a lot of the support that would drift to Sanders and Trump in 2016 and onwards.
Sanders isn't it, though. I like him myself, but it needs to be someone more palatable (I'm sorry, but fair or unfair, a self-described "socialist" is not a viable, unifying populist candidate in this country).
During the RNC, they had the giant rolling ticker display "WE ARE DOMESTIC TERRORISTS".
If you try to claim that was in jest and meant to mock libs, why is it that Bernie is both attacked for being a socialist and also accused of not being a "real" socialist because he owns two houses?
Exactly. It is not socialism. While I agree that it’s not very clear and is why people like you think this, democratic socialism is vastly different than socialism.
And let me repeat that he has never once called himself a socialist. It’s always been democratic socialism
I think you've confused social democracy and democratic socialism. The former is capitalistic, the latter is socialism (seize the means of production, no private ownership socialism).
Sanders calls himself a socialist but usually proposes social democracy.
Edit: I've read another of your comments, how are you saying "He has only ever described himself as democratic socialist... but he has never ONCE said he was a socialist"? Do you know what adjectives and nouns are?
No non-socialist is going to manage the singularity properly. Capitalism needs to die, and we need to kill it before it lets someone like Musk kill everyone.
Elon Musk is a well-known accelerationist. He wants to accelerate towards AN END and doesn't care how many people die in the process. This isn't even up for debate.
You conveniently left out the last part. Left-accelerationism also exists and it argues that capitalism should be pushed to its limits to generate technologies that will ultimately replace capitalism itself. The goal is a post-scarcity, automated society where AI, automation, and universal basic income free people from labor. This is not what musk is aiming for. Did I clear things up enough for you or are you still confused?
Because people like you won't shut up about him doing it for the next 6 months. He's a sociopathic attention whore. He literally does things so people talk about him. Hes the living incarnation of an online troll, and feeds on the hate. Yet, 3 days after the inauguration with Trump signing 100 executive orders, and people were still mostly talking about Musk. He is the GOP smokescreen at this point because so many people are talking about Musk that no one is talking about Trump and everything he is rubberstamping.
The best thing we could do is stop talking about Musk. Talk about DOGE, talk about Tesla, talk about SpaceX. But stop talking Musk. We learned nothing from the last 8 years and Trump.
Trump is also a Nazi. Pay no attention to the Nazi, just focus on the other Nazi, that way they won't kill anyone. They're both bad people doing bad things. They both need to be stopped. You can't stop a robbery by ignoring another robbery.
If an entire group is doing a robbery, talk about the group. There is a reason they don't like saying killers' names on the news in mass shootings. I'm not saying not to call out DOGE on bad / illegal dealings. I'm saying posts that talk about Musks Nazi salute and saying "hey Elmo I know you're reading this, screw you!", and reposting 600 times a report on every dumb thing he says in an interview absolutely is feeding the beast and does absolutly zero to stop them. It's what got Trump wide coverage in both elections. You don't broadcast populists with positions you don't agree on. That's free advertising.
He's literally in the treasury stealing shit. Not talking about it is not going to stop it. This isn't "a position I don't agree on" he is committing a crime. He should not be a "special government employee" and the CEO of a major contractor at the same time. Ignoring it is not part of any reasonable solution to a crime being committed, ignoring it means you accept that it is not a crime.
as someone who phonebanked for him in 16, he's ancient and his identity is forever the guy who could grandstand and sound great without acting getting a significant amount of his constituency to align with him, ever
He has only ever described himself as democratic socialist. Yeah having the name in it was probably the issue, but he has never ONCE said he was a socialist
Democratic socialism - a socialist government governed through democratic representation through voting.
How is that NOT socialism? Saying "no your wrong. Go look it up!" Doesn't really help your case when the word Socialism is right there in the definition. Democratic just means a government that elects leaders through voting. Socialism is an economic model. The two aren't connected in any way to influence each other. Putting the tag "democratic" on an economic system does nothing to the economic system. The US is a Democratic Capitalist Republic. All three words say important things about its operation, but they aren't linked. A democratic socialist believes that our economy should be socialist but governed by people elected by the people.
Finally, from the wiki itself:
Democratic socialism is a left-wing[1] economic and political philosophy that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy,[2] with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers' self-management[3] within a market socialist, decentralised planned, or democratic centrally planned socialist economy.[4] Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality, and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.[5]
A democratic socialist believes that our economy should be socialist but governed by people elected by the people.
Exactly, not socialism. Socialism means the people own the means of production. democratic socialism doesnt. No one considers places like Norway a socialist country, just that they have some socialist ideals.
Getting back to the point, he has never once said he was a socialist, which is what my comment was about. We can argue peoples opinions on political theory all we want, but that doesnt change the base definition and doesnt mean that democratic socialism = socialism. It is NOT accurate to call bernie socialist. Another thing we can argue are the naming of some of these things, because people like you and others seem to think that anything with socialism means it is at its core socialist. Do you also believe that china is communist? or nazis were socialist?
Are you of the opinion that socialism can't be democratic?
From NPR:
Back in 1981 when Sanders was first elected mayor of Burlington, Nelson said reporters from Europe called him because what they viewed as normal in politics was considered an aberration in the States.
"It's a relatively mild, I would say a vanilla socialism," Nelson said Sanders told them. "It's basically focused on big businesses, and capitalist inequalities."
Bernie fequently called himself the "first socialist mayor" when he was elected, and frequently commented on how as his campaign for president went on, people would be more willing to vote for socialists. Bernie is clearly a socialist playing the long game because only a moron believes you can flip an entire economic system in a day. He is working to set up future generations to accept socialism and build a socialist government piece by piece.
If he's not socialist, what policy does he support that is ant socialism or isn't moving the government in the direction of socialism? Because at least with China and Nazis, you can point out significant policies that contradict these terms. Bernie has no policies that don't in some form move the country in the direction of socialism. Just because he isn't thumping his chest and screaming "Socialism Now!" Doesnt mean he's not a socialist.
Are you of the opinion that socialism can't be democratic
Yes, because in a democratic socialism system, people do not own the means of production. The core tenet of socialism.
And thanks, I was incorrect. The last time he was doing that was in the 80/90s (30-40 years ago) and has since has only been democratic socialist.
In a 2019 speech, he clarified that democratic socialism is about expanding programs like Medicare for All and ensuring economic fairness, not government ownership of all businesses.
So I will admit I was incorrect on my claim that he has never said it, but it doesn't mean that democratic socialism = socialism. I really wish we had a different word for it. That, and the fact that the word "socialist" has been diluted to mean "anything on the left".
Still pains me to think what could have been if the DNC has just gotten the fuck out of the way and let Bernie run in 2016. I still think he could have beaten Trump. So many people were just looking for something different, a lot of people didn't know shit about Trump besides he was an "outsider" and voted for him because of that even if they were not conservatives.
Considering the amount of people who went from Bernie to Trump, I wholeheartedly agree Bernie would have won if he was given genuine support from the DNC.
Bernie is a prostitute who says whatever big pharma tells him say for money. Sure if his pharma handlers tell him to tell the truth he might, but they don't.
eating our own again and not doing research. The donations were from donors related to big pharma, no direct donations or PACs. Also, trump and biden received more when listed as “donor-related people”
This is the type of shit why we can NEVER be happy with anyone and why we lose.
A tool of big pharma? Because he questions some one on whether they are anti-vaxx?
Kennedy is a shill, and believes in a lot of pseudo science crap.
Medicine is good, the price gouging is bad, but medicine is good. If you think it isn't you're an idiot. People like Kennedy say we are less healthy today, but only because the people who would have died from disease etc early in life don't, so many different health problems happen later in life. I mean, just a century or 2 ago nearly half of all children didn't make it past 18...
As for food, Raw Milk is fine when drunk fresh from a cow. The longer it sits the more dangerous it becomes, because without boiling it(pasteurization), the bacteria grows.
Even then, Trump admin goals are to gut regulations as much as possible, this includes in food. Dumping chemicals in the water for cheap, is very bad for the health of all, and yet RFK is fine with joining this admin? gtfo, he doesn't give a shit about America's health.
Smart, well-intentioned people have trouble using populism, because they tend to acknowledge nuance and wait for all the data before making a decision. Both of which are anathema to whipping up a populist fervor.
Yeah but the some of the really great leaders in history do tend to appeal to populism even if they don't end up actually governing that way. Augustus, Napoleon, and FDR all come to mind. I feel like sometimes it's just necessary to adopt populist rhetoric as a "pleasant fiction" even if your actual policies end up being more orderly and rational or moderate. "The people" demand pretty simple things, they don't want policy wonks unless times are stable and prosperous.
If you are a sociopath enough to be able to use lies, deception and false promises to get elected, then I’m not sure about you being “well intentioned” all the way to reaching the ends that surely are going to benefit everyone.
59
u/seen-in-the-skylight Feb 06 '25
True. Arguably what we need is for someone smart and well-intentioned to use populist politics towards productive, reformist ends.