Why is this author confusing Sanders as if he is advocating for a form of communism? At best, Sanders is a mixture of the two as a socialist capitalist. Just because he has accumulated some form...
It’s obviously true that in a socialist analysis, personal decisions by individual rich people are not really “the problem,” and the problem is the system by which wealth is accumulated and distributed. But if you find yourself sitting atop a mountain of money, do you have an obligation to share? Does being a socialist entail having an “ethic of sharing and generosity,” one that requires you to be a good person? Or is it alright for us to adopt a selfish Ayn Rand-type ethic when it comes to accumulation and possession, then advocate for the state to redistribute from the greedy to the needy?
Why is this author confusing Sanders as if he is advocating for a form of communism? At best, Sanders is a mixture of the two as a socialist capitalist. Just because he has accumulated some form of wealth recently through his book sales, does not mean he should be expected to give away his wealth to better his narrative/platform.
In many things he is advocating for, his platform includes a tax reform to ensure the top 1% pay more dues in their taxes. He is aware he falls under this bracket and would prefer being taxed substantially more than he currently is. I don't see why he must give away his recently earned wealth as he isn't preaching for anti-capitalist views.
Yeah. It's kind of the ole "can't be wealthy and demand redistribution; do as you preach first" (flipside being "if you're poor and demand redistribution, you're just looking for a freebie")....
Yeah. It's kind of the ole "can't be wealthy and demand redistribution; do as you preach first" (flipside being "if you're poor and demand redistribution, you're just looking for a freebie"). Like, I don't want to just donate my shit, that's not how socialism works. Then only assholes who donate nothing will end up rich. You want that? Sanders is willing to give up his millions I'm sure; but only as long as everyone wealthier than him does the same. Rather reasonable imo.
Similarly, my personal ideal would be far to the left with more redistribution compared to what germany currently has. I'm opposed to current financial markets BS. But I'll be damned if I won't grab that interest on my money, even if I hate it existing. To only personally refrain is to surrender and let the selfish ones have it all.
Is it wrong if I look at this kind of like asking someone to lay down their arms during a war because they imagine a future without weapons, or does that metaphor make sense?
Money is power in our society but there are other forms of power. I think the author wouldn't view this as laying down of arms but as an investment in a rhetorical weapon. Perhaps a million could...
Is it wrong if I look at this kind of like asking someone to lay down their arms during a war because they imagine a future without weapons, or does that metaphor make sense?
Money is power in our society but there are other forms of power. I think the author wouldn't view this as laying down of arms but as an investment in a rhetorical weapon. Perhaps a million could be better spent on advertisements in a more traditional campaign but Sanders' whole brand is based around the ability to honestly and uncynically proclaim: "not me, us".
I can't completely defend the author's point of view but I have heard them discuss Sanders' politics quite a lot and I don't think that they make this mistake here. Advocating for rich people to...
Why is this author confusing Sanders as if he is advocating for a form of communism?
I can't completely defend the author's point of view but I have heard them discuss Sanders' politics quite a lot and I don't think that they make this mistake here.
I don't see why he must give away his recently earned wealth as he isn't preaching for anti-capitalist views.
Advocating for rich people to give their wealth away isn't necessarily anti-capitalist. Rich capitalists have been giving their money away for centuries. In the most charitable cases, they do it in a way that at least promotes their interests (which happen to be motivated by a sense of egalitarianism). In this case, the author is proposing that Sanders gives his money away for the self-interested purpose of improving the narrative that he has constructed for the purpose of attaining the presidency.
Passing legislation and policies that promote the workers' democratic control of their production would be anti-capitalist. I am fairly certain that Sanders is in that camp seeing as he has proposed legislation for the promotion of worker cooperatives in the past.
this is an intensely cynical way of viewing other people and their political views, gotta be honest. i think most people do at the end of the day think about other people in deciding what they...
Because in general, the average socialist much like the average human, doesn't do much empathetic thinking, or thinking outside of their own chosen world view. They refuse to consider the legitimacy of other people's political reality and thus are unable to to have productive or constructive conversations without using their own narrative as a lense.
this is an intensely cynical way of viewing other people and their political views, gotta be honest. i think most people do at the end of the day think about other people in deciding what they believe and putting forward the policies they want implemented in the world; where they differ is mostly in what they prioritize as accomplishing that goal for the people they represent. for conservatives, that generally takes the form of curbing big government and taxes and preserving a status quo they feel works; for liberals this takes the form of reforming the system by making it more equitable but in such a way so as to not upend it; for socialists, this takes the form of smashing the current system because it exploits laborers and gives power to people who don't need it, and so on. of course, some approaches are better than others--many republican policies for example fuck over people egregiously--but that does not inherently mean that those people do not think at all about other people in choosing to pursue those policies. it may be that they see that as the lesser evil of two options.
The author presents arguments as to why Bernie Sanders should discard the newly acquired wealth from his book sales. I think the closing paragraph provides a decent excerpt for summarizing their...
The author presents arguments as to why Bernie Sanders should discard the newly acquired wealth from his book sales.
I think the closing paragraph provides a decent excerpt for summarizing their position.
Politics isn’t fair. You might think that the FBI investigation against you is completely overblown, but it’s still happening. You might think that you shouldn’t have your wealth held against you, that it’s not technically hypocrisy, that it’s an unreasonable distraction from the Real Issues. And you might be right. But if you want to win elections, it doesn’t matter whether you’re right. It matters what the narrative is. Keeping a million dollars for no reason except that you “shouldn’t have to give it away”—even though it dampens your message, is a huge embarrassment, and represents a colossal lost opportunity to score points—makes no sense. Bernie Sanders has a good shot at becoming president in 2020. He has been doing really, really well—just look at him rallying support for Medicare for All on FOX News. But this is a hard fight, and he should not take on any political liabilities that could cost him even a single percentage point in support, or provide any kind of media spectacle. If he doesn’t write a big check for a million dollars, he might not be a hypocrite in the literal sense of the word, but he is probably doing something immoral and definitely doing something unwise.
I'm not entirely convinced that this would be as politically expedient as the author suspects. I definitely think he makes a good case for a position that doesn't appear to be all that popular on the left (as far as I've encountered, anyway).
It seems like it would be a good opportunity to explain why voluntary redistribution is less effective more difficult than taxation. Personally, as a long-time Bernie skeptic who may be coming...
It seems like it would be a good opportunity to explain why voluntary redistribution is less effective more difficult than taxation. Personally, as a long-time Bernie skeptic who may be coming around, this would do a lot to demonstrate his sincerity.
To some, perhaps a lot of voters, this may very well appear to be hypocrisy, especially when politicized by the media. Whether this becomes a political liability for Sanders remains to be seen....
To some, perhaps a lot of voters, this may very well appear to be hypocrisy, especially when politicized by the media. Whether this becomes a political liability for Sanders remains to be seen. However it might just as much be a political asset.
Why is this author confusing Sanders as if he is advocating for a form of communism? At best, Sanders is a mixture of the two as a socialist capitalist. Just because he has accumulated some form of wealth recently through his book sales, does not mean he should be expected to give away his wealth to better his narrative/platform.
In many things he is advocating for, his platform includes a tax reform to ensure the top 1% pay more dues in their taxes. He is aware he falls under this bracket and would prefer being taxed substantially more than he currently is. I don't see why he must give away his recently earned wealth as he isn't preaching for anti-capitalist views.
Yeah. It's kind of the ole "can't be wealthy and demand redistribution; do as you preach first" (flipside being "if you're poor and demand redistribution, you're just looking for a freebie"). Like, I don't want to just donate my shit, that's not how socialism works. Then only assholes who donate nothing will end up rich. You want that? Sanders is willing to give up his millions I'm sure; but only as long as everyone wealthier than him does the same. Rather reasonable imo.
Similarly, my personal ideal would be far to the left with more redistribution compared to what germany currently has. I'm opposed to current financial markets BS. But I'll be damned if I won't grab that interest on my money, even if I hate it existing. To only personally refrain is to surrender and let the selfish ones have it all.
Is it wrong if I look at this kind of like asking someone to lay down their arms during a war because they imagine a future without weapons, or does that metaphor make sense?
Money is power in our society but there are other forms of power. I think the author wouldn't view this as laying down of arms but as an investment in a rhetorical weapon. Perhaps a million could be better spent on advertisements in a more traditional campaign but Sanders' whole brand is based around the ability to honestly and uncynically proclaim: "not me, us".
I can't completely defend the author's point of view but I have heard them discuss Sanders' politics quite a lot and I don't think that they make this mistake here.
Advocating for rich people to give their wealth away isn't necessarily anti-capitalist. Rich capitalists have been giving their money away for centuries. In the most charitable cases, they do it in a way that at least promotes their interests (which happen to be motivated by a sense of egalitarianism). In this case, the author is proposing that Sanders gives his money away for the self-interested purpose of improving the narrative that he has constructed for the purpose of attaining the presidency.
Passing legislation and policies that promote the workers' democratic control of their production would be anti-capitalist. I am fairly certain that Sanders is in that camp seeing as he has proposed legislation for the promotion of worker cooperatives in the past.
this is an intensely cynical way of viewing other people and their political views, gotta be honest. i think most people do at the end of the day think about other people in deciding what they believe and putting forward the policies they want implemented in the world; where they differ is mostly in what they prioritize as accomplishing that goal for the people they represent. for conservatives, that generally takes the form of curbing big government and taxes and preserving a status quo they feel works; for liberals this takes the form of reforming the system by making it more equitable but in such a way so as to not upend it; for socialists, this takes the form of smashing the current system because it exploits laborers and gives power to people who don't need it, and so on. of course, some approaches are better than others--many republican policies for example fuck over people egregiously--but that does not inherently mean that those people do not think at all about other people in choosing to pursue those policies. it may be that they see that as the lesser evil of two options.
The author presents arguments as to why Bernie Sanders should discard the newly acquired wealth from his book sales.
I think the closing paragraph provides a decent excerpt for summarizing their position.
I'm not entirely convinced that this would be as politically expedient as the author suspects. I definitely think he makes a good case for a position that doesn't appear to be all that popular on the left (as far as I've encountered, anyway).
It seems like it would be a good opportunity to explain why voluntary redistribution is less effective more difficult than taxation. Personally, as a long-time Bernie skeptic who may be coming around, this would do a lot to demonstrate his sincerity.
To some, perhaps a lot of voters, this may very well appear to be hypocrisy, especially when politicized by the media. Whether this becomes a political liability for Sanders remains to be seen. However it might just as much be a political asset.