Socialism "corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself".

Pft!

Kasparov? Chess player. No particular authority on socialism. Join me next week I'll be asking ex world champion darts player Eric Bristow aka "the Crafty Cockney" for his views on American Art during the Reconstruction period.

"I'm enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd"

- Garry Kasparov

Stopped reading after the first sentence. What they had in the Soviet Union was the furthest thing from socialism. If the guy doesnt understand that then he's not worth listening to.

Stopped reading after the first sentence. What they had in the Soviet Union was the furthest thing from socialism. If the guy doesnt understand that then he's not worth listening to.

Elements of both capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive...as far as I'm aware nobody is suggesting America go full-on 100% socialist.

Who owns the 'means of production' is a pretty fine distinction in that context. The 'means of production' isn't the primary developer of wealth and capital; it's knowledge. Trying to claim that the communist states weren't 'true' socialism in that sense just seems like a cheap attempt to deny the underlying problem, which is that socialism and communism don't have any mechanism for people to generate capital from knowledge, whether it be patenting a new technology or even simply bargaining for a high salary for their skill set.

I wouldn't even know why and how inequality is a "huge problem" - it's not a problem in reality. only in the mind. the fact that one person has more than another person doesn't harm the person with less, seeing as they didn't get more in the first place by stealing it from the other person.

Because money buys influence, quite simply.
I don't particularly want to live in an oligarchy where those with huge wealth call the shots, even if not democratically elected.

Is it right that companies give their CEO's an enormous pay rise while paying it's workers a starvation wage and making their contracts less secure?

Try using some common sense. Do you think Sanders supporters:
A.) Want a Soviet style regim with Gulags and absolute state control over all aspects of life. Or

B.) Want a slight redistribution of wealth, higher taxes and more responsibility for those at the very topic and an expanded public sector and higher quality public services such as healthcare and transport.


Why some people insist that to favour socialism means you want a Stalinite system is perplexing.

Okay, back to Sanders. First off it might be good to post another comment by Kasparov which further illustrates what he was talking about.

"Yes, please take Scandinavia as an example! Implementing some socialistic elements AFTER becoming a wealthy capitalist economy only works as long as you don't choke off what made you wealthy to begin with in the process. Again, it's a luxury item that shouldn't be confused with what is really doing the work, as many do. And do not forget that nearly all of the countless 20th-century innovations and industries that made the rest of the developed world so efficient and comfortable came from America, and it wasn't a coincidence. As long as Europe had America taking risks, investing ambitiously, and yes, being "inequal," it had the luxury of benefiting from the results without making the same sacrifices. Who will be America's America?"

I half-agree with this. I think part of the reason the United States puts out so many innovations is simply because it is very big. Also, being pro big-business is not the exact same as being pro-economy. However, I think part of the reason for the United States' economic power is its ability to create large businesses which generate staggering amounts of wealth and economic activity. Look, for instance, at how American companies are so dominant in technology, probably the single most important area in increasing future productivity. For that reason it's not entirely irrational to stick with what works ie. keeps it a superpower. A lot of what Sanders' says makes an infinite amount of sense to me as someone who grew up in a half-way social democracy, but through his policies and actions he strikes me more as an impassioned activist than someone with the ability to deal with the negative consequences of globalisation and the United States' economic model. One thing I can't get over is the $15 minimum wage he proposes. Raising the minimum wage is a policy that makes sense, but $15 is higher than the living wage in Manhattan. It would cause significantly higher unemployment, or at least the introduction of very creative types of work contracts that will completely screw the poorest out of reasonably stable employment. If he's going to let his idealism get in the way of common sense he won't accomplish anything in his term of office. And this is ignoring the practical aspect, which is that if by some miracle the Democrats field him as their candidate, he carries a significantly higher risk of ceding control to the Republicans, who seem to be hell-bent on reversing any social progress made under Obama. And even if he gets in the odds are stacked against any of the more ambitious bills he attempts to pass.

1) "money buys influence" =/= "money buys democracy". there are laws to stop that. and if they are weak laws, then they ought to be strengthened.
2) *sigh* companies are private entities so they can do what they want.

Sigh. Such laws don't stop they got the very reason that our democracy is influenced heavily by big money interests:
Logic.

So companies can pay huge sums to the government and get favours? So we can buy legislation if we are rich enough? Great.

"I'm enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd"

- Garry Kasparov