(05-14-2020, 11:35 AM)Last42min Wrote: It's cool. It was my major also. I disagreed with most my professors and half of my peers, so it's possible to have an honest discussion about the subject. I just lose my patience with a person like Mikel who likes to read Wikipedia, then present himself as an expert here. 

You nailed the bolded part. Social democrats are largely pro-capitalist with an emphasis on a large social safety net, but Democratic socialists are pro-socialist (in that they think the means of production should be run by the state), but think decisions should be made via the people through a democratic process. Social democrats are as far to the left as you can get in a capitalist system, while democratic socialists are as far as you can get to the right in a socialist system. While there is some overlap with regards to welfare, the big difference goes back to who controls the means of production. Let me address some of your points. 

1. I do understand that there is confusion, even at the undergrad level. I don't think this is due to a lack of clarity of the terminology, but rather the institutions' fixation on Marxism, Communism, and Fascism. There is a terrible bias in academia with regards to socialism, and I feel this tends to soften the role it has played in tyrannical governments. I will admit that I didn't even have a solid grasp of the systems until many years after graduating from college, as I continued to educate myself about history and philosophy. I am ok with people confusing these terms, but not after it's been explained. 

2. This distinction between terms exacerbated by the rhetoric rampant in our political system, and I've already conceded that point in my previous post. I don't think this justifies using the more extreme of two terms, though. I could see why someone might use the justification you presented here, but it just seems like a terrible strategy. 

3. It's a possibility, certainly. I just find it hard to believe he doesn't know the difference. 

4. You left out 4. He wants a socialist society and is ok with misleading the public until it's a realistic possibility. One of the problems I have with Marxism is that it was literally designed to usher in a communist society (we would say Marxist) using a socialist society to destroy a capitalist society. People who study his works and those that follow, know the blueprint. Depending on the author, this could be achieved through revolutionary means or democratic means. Because of this, it is actually very hard to believe that anyone that reads and values Marx would like to stop anywhere short of Marxism.

1. The best way I've seen the line drawn between socialism and communism is this: "Is a military presence required to maintain socialism? Then it's called communism." Obviously there are a lot of smaller qualifiers in there, but the basic gist of it holds up. If your "socialist" government would be removed from office without a strong military presence keeping it there, then it's not really socialism at all. You can get deeper into the rabbit hole from there, and it's a deep one to crawl down.

2 (and 3). I really think Sanders just doesn't care about the difference. He decided long ago that "democratic socialist" sounded better and went with that.

4. Or this. President AOC seems almost inevitable at some point, much like how Obama was essentially anointed to the role. That's as much because of her celebrity status as it is her being one of only a few people in the Democratic Party that actually have a vision about where they want it to go. If Sanders does want to see a socialist nation, then nudging AOC and her group further on down that line would make sense, now that his own political career has reached its end. AOC turns 35 in 2024. Just saying, if I knew she was coming on down the line and I needed a patsy who wouldn't cost me downline votes while losing with grace, Biden would be on my short list.

---