... What is more important? To broadcast to people what they already know—that Sanders’ conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism (capitalism with a “human face”) and not socialism in the Marxian sense, which results from the overthrow of the capitalist class?
Or: to note and appreciate the historical significance of Sanders’ campaign in returning the very term “socialism” to public discourse and emboldening people to openly identify with a concept anathema to Wall Street, the 1%, and the entire (widely hated) political establishment?
Look, there's a really simple and obvious way to defuse this issue a great deal. Bernie Sanders simply needs to say that he knows the difference between democratic socialism, social democracy, and a welfare state and that he's advocating the latter. He may be a Democratic Socialist in his heart, but he's been making a rather strange error by defining what is the welfare state as democratic socialism no less, when the welfare state isn't even social democracy.
Also, what do you mean, "broadcast to people what they already know"? The only reason many of them now know is because people (I'm included) broadcasted it. If we hadn't said a word, those people would have been left in the dark thinking socialism is just a greater welfare-state. Germany is a welfare state. The US is a welfare state, just weakly so.
To clarify further, "Sanders' conception of “socialism” is really Scandinavian-style capitalism" isn't a correct statement. Capitalism is no less particular than is socialism. Scandinavia has recently been social democratic, which means a mixed economy with some nationalized enterprises and not a capitalist economy, per se.
Medicaid isn't even socialist medicine. Socialist medicine is the people, via the state, owning the hospitals, employing the medical practitioners, etc. It is not merely a matter of who pays the private enterprises to provide the medical services.
Why does all of this matter? Is simply putting the term "socialism" out there, where many young people not only don't hate it but actually like it, a good thing on balance?
If "socialism" is the welfare state, which is what Bernie Sanders has so far really been advocating (no socialism yet, not even social democracy), then how in the world will we ever get to full-fledged democracy where how much money one has, gives that one no more say than the other person has via a vote?
Someone somewhere started a process of watering down these concepts. I hadn't known about it until I was overviewing the Wikipedia and then Sanders began running on the flawed definitions.
No, it is not simply better that the term "socialism" gets out there. It is important that people be taught correctly so that they won't simply accept an enhanced welfare-state in lieu of state enterprises where appropriate (which full-blown capitalists always and everywhere oppose because state enterprises represent "unfair" competition against the capitalists' desire to own everything privately regardless of the harm).
Please see my Monetary-and-Banking-Reform Platform for The United States.
Also see my "Unelectable": Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)