Wait! Is Sanders an anti-govt. Libertarian nut or a fascist going for state takeovers?

[Bonobo]

Can we at least get this cleared up?

I see the same people saying that Sanders is a Randian Anti-Government nutbag and THEN saying he is for government ownership of all private enterprise...

It CAN'T be both, so which is it?

It reminds me of how Jews have traditionally been attacked as both socialist/communists AND as super Capitalists controlling all the money through an international banking conspiracy.

[Garrett78]

1. He's too far left. He's not left of Clinton. Makes your head spin.

Anyway, remember the 'D' and keep it holy.

[WillyT]

2. It's An Even BIGGER Tent... When It Seems You Have Mutiple Personalities...

[HERVEPA]

31. You are just so full of it.

It wasn't funny by the way, just stupid.

[WillyT]

35. "I see the same people saying that Sanders is a Randian Anti-Government nutbag and THEN saying he is

for government ownership of all private enterprise...

It CAN'T be both, so which is it?

[HERVEPA]

38. My apologies. I misread your post.

[DanTex]

3. Neither. Just a socialist who can't win the GE.

I don't know who "the same people are," but whoever said he's a fascist or a libertarian is wrong.

[ram2008]

4. Yet he has higher net favorability than Hillary

Whose favorability numbers are approaching those of George W. Bush. And He's the one not electable? lol.

[Bonobo]

5. "Bernie wants the government to take over all private enterprise!" - Sound familiar, Dan? nt

[DanTex]

6. Well, in 1987 Bernie was in favor of the government owning the major means of production.

That's certainly true, based on his own words. Not sure whether he's evolved on that, but regardless, it doesn't make him either a fascist or a libertarian.

[Bonobo]

7. No he wasn't but that is what you are saying his position is. The question is, why?

I think it is because you think using his own words does not sound damning. And damning is what you are going for.

So you substituted his phrase "public ownership" for "government ownership" and then make false claims.

Why? Because you think, cynically, that enough people are afraid of the "gubbnit" that if you make that claim, you can try to paint Sanders as someone that thinks the government should take over private companies.

Ironically, it makes YOU look a bit like a tea-bagger in addition to it showing that you like to play fast and loose with facts.

No, I will not rehash the argument here. Just point out that Sanders NEVER said that his position was that government should own the means of production. That is what YOU said he said and it is not true. It is, in fact, factually a lie.

[DanTex]

10. Of course he was. "Public ownership" and "government ownership" mean the same thing.

Everyone knows this. Even you.

You're right, he didn't say the government should own "the means of production", he said the government should own the "major means of production." Maybe microbreweries or violin workshops stay private.

[Bonobo]

11. Provide the quote. Then we will see who is prevaricating. nt

[DanTex]

14. "Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=581267

And in case anyone is ignorant enough to not know what "public ownership" means:

a ​situation where the ​government ​owns ​property, a ​company, or an ​industry

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/public-ownership

[Bonobo]

15. Thank you for confirming that you altered his quote and stated it falsely. nt

[DanTex]

16. I didn't alter any quote. I stated it correctly. What's with the false allegations?

The only false quote here is yours:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251581823#post5

[Bonobo]

17. Here is your false quote:

Dan (from above): "He said the government should own the "major means of production."

Conflict: No, he did not.

Evidence: Actual quote: "Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production"

Case rested. True allegation.

[DanTex]

18. Umm, I wasn't quoting him (hence the lack of quotes).

In order to alter a quote, you have to actually, you know, alter a quote. What I did was accurately convey his opinion as of 1987, which is that the government should own the major means of production.

Are you denying that "public ownership" and "government ownership" mean the same thing? Because if not, then this case is indeed closed and you are wrong. And if you are denying that, then you are also wrong.

[Bonobo]

19. You're right! You are guilty of misrepresenting his positions, not false quoting.

Thanks for the correction.

[DanTex]

21. Do you deny that "public ownership" means the same thing as "government ownership".

Don't dodge the question.

[Bonobo]

22. I promise I will answer your question if you concede that "public" doesn't mean "government".

Do you think the word "public" means the same as "government"?

[DanTex]

23. Wow, you are dodging. That's a shame, because you seemed to understand this just a few hours ago.

DanTex (9,345 posts)
74. That's because "public ownership" and "government ownership" are synonyms.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/public-ownership
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/public+ownership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_ownership
Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to DanTex (Reply #74)Wed Sep 9, 2015, 10:13 PM
Bonobo (26,518 posts)
76. Understood. But you are confusing a discussion of political theory with the application of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251581267#post76

What's relevant here (obviously) is the entire phrase "public ownership," which is a very common and well understood term and means government ownership. Everyone knows this. Even you. Why you are trying to pretend not to is beyond me. Sure, in other contexts "public" and "government" mean different things, but when used together with "ownership", they mean the same thing. You know, kind of like a "hot dog" isn't the same thing as a high-temperature canine.

[Bonobo]

25. OK, let me answer AND school you on rhetoric since you are playing rhetorical games.

Yes, in principle, in a Democratic system, the government is, by definition, a representation of the people. Its power and authority are derived from the public and its behavior is controlled by the will of the public.

As such, the ownership in question here can ONLY be accomplished by the government since the government is the very body which represents the public.

So, in theory, there is no conflict and what you say is true.

But enter now, your sad and transparent rhetorical games. I don't know maybe you have less experience with manipulative people where you come from than I do, but to me, your actions are as transparent as a child with a fake fever. Let's take a look:

In a pure system, in political THEORY, with a perfect democracy, the "public ownership" of say, an oil company, represents the fact that the public, the citizens have ownership of the resources of the country. Are you opposed to this?

Now, this gets manipulative because you know that there is sufficient distrust of government (not a pure theoretical government now, but a real and oligarchic government, quite the opposite of a representation of the public!) that if you say that a politician is in favor of the government "taking over" private business, you can create Randian images of the government agent taking over a mom and pop business or something.

However, in 30 years of public service, we have seen that despite his talk of political theory, he is an eminently pragmatic person who recognizes that academic discussions of political theory are just that and represent a sort of ideal.

Your manipulation is doen through 2 basic ways.
1) Selling the idea of bad government taking over. Like every other Republican talking point against Democrat, and
2) Blurring the line between academic political theory and actual policy positions.

[DanTex]

26. Public ownership means government ownership. Period. Thank you.

So I was right all along. All the accusations about altering quotes and misrepresenting are completely false.

In 1987 Bernie was in favor of government ownership of the major means of production. That's a fact.

And it's a little odd that you are so afraid of Bernie's own ideas that you object so vehemently to a 100% accurate account of them, which is what we have now established my account was.

It's not my fault if this brings up Randian images in your mind. It doesn't in my mind. In my mind, it's just the standard classical socialist system. Government owns the factories. Workplaces are run democratically by some kind of worker's council (the Russian term is "soviet&quot , and everyone is happy. Yay socialism.

[Bonobo]

28. I'm quite satisfied I accurately called out your manipulation. We can let it rest now.

But if you feel the overwhelming need to have the last word, I will let you have it.

[DanTex]

30. Yup, it's pretty much run its course. Again.

Next time we can probably just skip the part where you pretend you don't know what "public ownership" means.

[Luminous Animal]

9. Nope. He was in favor of a democratic ownership work place. Quit lying. You are purposefully conflating

public ownership with command and/or controlled ownership. Refusing to educate yourself about the difference is akin to Teabaggers yelling that Obama is a socialist and you are spreading ignorance.

Based on his own words, he advocates public ownership not government ownership.

[DanTex]

12. Public ownership is state ownership. Look it up.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/public-ownership

[Luminous Animal]

20. No dude, it is not. Bernie was referring specifically to a democratic workplace

There is a difference between 'public ownership' and 'public ownership of the means of production' whereas your labor is also included as a means of production (often overlooked in state ownership). One demands active agency over you own situation… public ownership of the means of production… i.e., direct democracy in the workplace.

[DanTex]

24. Of course it is, it's a term that's well understood by everyone. There are ways to express

other concepts like worker-owned cooperatives and workplace democracy, but public ownership of the means of production means a very specific thing: it means owned by the government.

And, no, labor is not included in "means of production." Means of production means things like factories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_ownership

[Luminous Animal]

29. Nope. It also means this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Democratic control of the workplace equals cooperatives… a bottom up enterprise. What Bernie stated was clearly a egalitarian workplace. Democratically controlled by those who work there.

[DanTex]

32. Democratic control means cooperatives, worker's councils, etc.

And "public ownership" means ownership by the government.

They aren't the same thing, you know. Bernie was in favor of both. You can have public ownership without worker control, and you can have worker control without public ownership. What Bernie advocated for was both public (i.e. government) ownership and worker control.

[Armstead]

33. Public utilities, public highways, municipal cooperatives, public schools

These are examples of public ownership and control

[DanTex]

34. Anything owned by the government is an example of "public ownership."

Because "public ownership" and "government ownership" are synonymous.

[jfern]

8. He was too mean to BLM and too weak in standing up to them

[Bonobo]

13. Yes. Exactly. nt

[Hydra]

27. I can't keep up with the 3rd wayers anymore

They fling wild insults the way the lowest of the RW do, and with as little regard for the truth or even basic reality, just praying something will stick.

It's really unnerving to see them claiming to be part of our party while behaving like Bushes.

[Juicy_Bellows]

36. I agree with all 9 of your heads! I don't get it either. nt.

[Kablooie]

37. I've come to the belief that Bernie Sanders is a bipedal hominid of the subspecies sapiens sapiens.