What do you think of the criticism of Bernie Sanders that he is too wealthy to call himself a socialist?

Bernie Sanders has worked almost all his working life as a people’s representative.He has never been a millionaire until 2017, when his only book he had ever written has come to the bestseller list. In addition, he owns one house, which has been paid off. He is 79. This he has built up in 79 years with works for his money. Now those who say this to him are on average 10x richer than Sanders. So that’s the first problem. You may not be rich of them if you are a social democrat (Democratic socialist). They find it hypocritical. They understand that honestly do not or do not want to understand that he is not for absolute equality, but against the extreme inequality that exists in the US. Nuances are difficult for them.

In addition, they have another criticism of other social Democrats: if you have been a worker, as AOC was a barwife, then it is not good either.In fact, there is no sense of economics. (She has a BA Economics at a good, well-known university, but she doesn’t fascinates, because Barvrouw). So you may not be rich and successful, but you may not have been (have) been a social democrat.

As I indicated in the beginning.Most senators and congressmen were already millionaires of themselves before they were elected. For a long time he was the ‘ poorest ‘ senator in terms of capacity. Now that he is a millionaire after almost 80 years, he is accused of him, while in the Senate almost only people who were never worth less than a million were seated.

This is such a right American talking point that only works superficially and not if you have a little longer when standing still.

Bernie Sanders lives in a clear world with one main goal: earning money.And he was apparently not so bad at it. But if he looks at it, even from his successful position, he doesn’t seem to find it a suitable goal. So he says: maybe we should do it differently. Look, socialists think in many respects different from capitalists. Capitalists look primarily at the individual, socialists look at the group. He wants to change the group, and his own position in relation to the group is only important insofar as it can give him resources to change the group. How much money he has will make the socialist little, as long as he thinks it is not important that he has it.

The criticism will not come from socialist angle, blame him for living like other people is a bit unjustifiably.Only that he wants to change something about it, socialists learn to let go of the capitalist obsession with individualism. According to Socialists, we are social animals, and make it out of what we make of it, but it doesn’t matter if the neighbor has a more expensive car than you do. Just as no matter how much money the socialist politician has.

Being a Socialist does not mean that you are unwealthy or that you must play Sinterklaas.It does mean that you have to divide the capital better to close the gap between rich and poor. Whoever listens to Bernie Sanders hears that he strives for this and is also willing to do so. The answer to this question is no, Bernie Sanders is not too wealthy to call himself a socialist,

Depends on how he became wealthy.

When I look for it I see that he has been a long time unwealthy.Sanders comes from the low middle class, 1st generation migrant family.

He has been a carpenter, film director, he wrote textbooks, etc.and lived very sober.

It was only when he became mayor that he had a fixed income for the first time.He became more and more known and his political career continued to run well.

Once in the highest regions of politics, he obviously had a pretty solid income and became a nationally known figure as well.

He continued to write books and some of them became bestsellers.

If you have all that, he is certainly wealthy, but he never deserves money on the hood of others and has never forgotten where he comes from.

If he is already visiting poor people there is no distance, but both he and the people he visits are at ease within 10 seconds.

Bernie is in the 70 and only the last 10 years he became wealthy.

If he continues to defend his socialist positions concequent and is not as an American capitalist, Sanders can call himself I.M.O. without shame socialist.

Grtn, Stign

I don’t know what Bernie Sanders ‘ ability is, but in the US it’s impossible for a non-wealthy man to acquire a high political office.

In addition, regardless of your assets, you can keep up with decent sociable ideas and put them into practice.
It is clear that Bernie Sanders is not a major industrialist or capitalist who is merely looking to get more and more possession at the expense of the less fortunate.If he did, he would not be able to call himself a socialist. But then he wouldn’t do it either.

You have to remember that there are different types of socialists.

If you believe that privately owned capital is a sin, then you need a very good reason not to share your own capital.Apparently Bernie Sanders believes he deserves wealth because he has written a bestseller. In General, privately owned capital is fine if you come to it In a fair way, such as selling a popular product. However, the latter has always fought Bernie with his plans to burden wealthy people more heavily, regardless of the popularity of the products and services that have yielded that money.

There are leftist popusts who use socialist ideas to gather power and who have no conscientious objections to increasing their wealth.This kind of socialists mainly want higher taxes to enrich themselves. Bernie could be such a kind of socialist.

There are social Democrats who use socialist policy to prevent the socialist revolution.In fact, they try to save the capitalist system by combating outwashing. Bernie could be such a kind of socialist. His wealth of one or two million dollars is not an outwash, while America also has billionaires. Social Democrats believe that such great wealth on laborers works like a red rag on a bull and try to do something about it.

Leninists believe that the liberation of the workers must come from an elitist vanguard.The gathering of wealth is a necessary evil: the money is needed to pay weapons and mercenaries for the fight against capitalism. Few socialists are preparing for the revolution, but Bernie has shown sympathy for the Soviet Union, so perhaps he is such a kind of socialist.

Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist.Democratic socialism normally means that capitalism has to depart, but not for the gross violence of a socialist revolution. Instead, it must be phased out In a peaceful way, with each step obtaining the assent of the people. It seems to me irresponsible to give people who really believe such nonsense power, but that aside. If Bernie believes in it, he still has something to explain about his own wealth. However, it is not difficult to give a post-modernist explanation which in any case sounds convincing to other Democratic socialists. First you say with many words that the good can be nothing but the will of the people. You say that a vote for Bernie means that the people for millionaires are only against billionaires. Obviously this should be an essay a few pages thick and quote a lot of dead wise to distract the attention of what a nonsense this is all about.

To come back to the question: Bernie’s wealth indeed excludes certain pure and radical forms of socialism, but ‘ socialist ‘ is a broad term.That is why he has ‘ freedom of speech ‘ according to the constitution imposed on him. So he is not too wealthy to call himself a socialist.

In one word: Lullig.

Will I have to waste some words?Okay then.

  1. Bernie calls himself a social Democrat, not a socialist.

Certainly in the US a hugely important difference and therefore no innocent mistake, because there socialist is synonymous with Communist.

  • He has worked for social democracy in his entire career.
  • He is therefore a social democrat because he is doing nothing but trying to create and apply social democracy.

  • His ability is the result of this commitment: increasing wages for increasingly political responsibility and being elected time and time again and since a few years fees for his book which is a bestseller because it is a good book written by Someone who knows what he is talking about because he has done it all his life.
  • He does not determine himself how much wage he gets and he does not determine himself how much his book sells.
  • To say that you cannot be a social democrat from a certain amount in your bank account is arbitrary and stupid.

  • This type of “argument” masks a lack of understanding and/or propriety.
  • Conduct the debate based on substantive arguments. Judge someone on his words and his deeds.

    In short: Having is a non argument that deliberately tries to distract attention and try to damage someone.The argument is to and that word suits everyone (from a certain IQ, let’s say) that uses that argument.

    I did not know of this kind of criticism and I have no opinion on Mr Sanders ‘ capacities.One of the founding fathers of the socialist Movement was Mr. F. Engels. One can sometimes see on drawings his head together with those of K. Marx and Lenin. English was a Vij wealthy person but is considered an important one in the socialist states

    This criticism does not stop at all. If wealthy people are not allowed to stand up for poor people, who will do it?Being wealthy and yet fighting for equality makes you just a good person.

    Having said that, there is sufficient valid criticism to formulate his actual views without having to look at his bank account.But that may not be entirely relevant to this question.

    Leave a Reply