is an economic system in which the public owns all of the major means of production - banks, insurance companies, utilities, auto manufacturers, computer companies, every major company.

That is why I cannot understand why Sanders labeled himself a socialist. I never hear him calling for government takeovers of the entire economy. Sanders is not a socialist. Why he gratuitously tarred himself with that label mystifies me.

He says precisely the opposite of what you're saying. He's talking about workers democratic control of workplaces. He is calling that industrial democracy.

that the term socialism "has been so evacuated of content over the last century that it's hard even to use." As he then explains, the term socialism traditionally meant public control of the major means of production in an economy.

Chomsky wasn't talking about Sanders specifically. My point is that Sanders has not been calling for public control over all of the major means of production - factories, banks, railroads, airlines, etc. Sanders is simply not a socialist as that term was traditionally defined. So, I ask, why has he hobbled himself with the label socialist when he isn't a socialist?

What does Sanders mean - does he think that anyone who believes in Social Security is a socialist? How about if you believe in public streets? Does that make you a socialist? I'm totally baffled as to why Sanders crippled himself with that label when it doesn't apply to him.

In the context of your posts it seems clear that you think socialism is government ownership. You wonder why Sanders calls himself a Socialist when "I never hear him calling for government takeovers of the entire economy."

You then use the term "public", "Sanders has not been calling for public control over all of the major means of production" again appearing to believe the socialism is some sort of societal or governmental ownership of the means of production.

This, to me, completely misses the point of Chomsky's statements and is a misunderstanding of socialism.
Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, not public, not government.

when he said that the term socialism "has been so evacuated of content over the last century that it's hard even to use." The original meaning was public ownership of the major means of production. The theory was that the government would for a period of time own and control everything important and that over time there would be a "withering away of the State" leading to a communist nirvana. The traditional definition did not encompass an economy in which every employee owned an equal number of shares in a corporate entity. But, as Chomsky points out, many folks have tried to distort the meaning of the term to serve their own interests. For example, they like to label Medicaid and other transfer programs as Socialism.

My point is that Bernie Sanders has not been calling for Socialism as traditionally defined or even as you are trying to define it and my question is - why did he do that to himself? If you don't know why he did it, you don't know. I sure don't know. That's why I'm asking you.

Chomsky is expressing that the core of socialism is workers' control of workplaces, not "public" control. That would be Chomsky's view. Most socialists today think there should be some mix of public control with direct worker control.

My point is that there is no single definitive definition of socialism, and there are many different socialist ideas out there. Chomsky has one angle, Bernie has his own. Some socialists won't admit Bernie to the "club" but I will.

He clearly knows what socialism is. If you read some of his older writings it at least demonstrates he has a clear grasp of the ideas. He simply expresses it differently these days. He repackaged it.

His policies are not socialism necessarily. They are in the center of the mainstream progressive movement. But they are motivated by Bernie's socialism. The people supporting Bernie sense that he's different from any other major politician today. That democratic socialist impulse is what gives him that clarity. He has an underlying socialist worldview that lets him express the issues with moral clarity. He knows the purpose of the economy should be to serve the people. We should have the right to basic economic security, like the right to a job at a living wage, to health care, education, and housing. Bernie knows the only way we can achieve these things is we have to fight against the super wealthy class of people whose wealth and privilege depends on keeping us poor. That's the billionaire class, and the corporations, the institutions of the system. But unfortunately they also dominate the government, so we have to organize a big majority of people to take control of the government, through the democracy. That's socialism in nutshell, repackaged for this American time and culture. It's not everything about socialism, but that's Bernie's best effort at explaining it and he seems to be having some success with it.

However, you might benefit from reading the first several paragraphs of the following article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/

You have listed a lot of rights that you think should accompany employment and I am not here to debate the merits of your proposals. If you look into the history of some of your desires, you will find that more than 100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt (who had been a Republican president) called for a "living wage" in his 1912 independent campaign for the presidency. Teddy Roosevelt was not a Socialist. He called himself a progressive. And, many of the goals you describe have been goals of the progressive movement in this country. But, they aren't socialism as that term was traditionally defined. Of course, you are free to make up a new definition of socialism, but if everyone has their own definition, it becomes more or loss useless to use the term socialism, as Chomsky points out.

My point is that the label Socialist has been a political epithet in this country. Future presidential candidates are not advised to label themselves Socialist, or atheist, or communist, or Scientologist even if they have devised their own personal definitions for these terms. So, I'm wondering why he did that. It makes no sense to me. And, I might add, while there may be some people who advocate that ownership of all companies be turned over to employees, I have never heard Bernie Sanders make that proposal. So, the question remains, why did he label himself a Socialist, if in fact he did?

He came from the socialist movement and that is his worldview.

He's not advocating anything very socialist though. His policies are only progressive policies that could be seen as steps toward social democracy or democratic socialism.

And his ideas of what it is going to take to achieve those goals, this is also informed by his socialist worldview. Political revolution, a revitalizing of American democracy, bringing millions of new voters into the system, a new class based politics, taking on the billionaire class, etc. There's a reason you don't hear any other politician talking that language. They don't have that socialist background.

But, he's not in any sense a socialist as that term has been traditionally defined. Utilizing traditional definitions, he is a progressive, but not a socialist.

But, this is a free country and you can make up any definitions that you want for the words you use. By changing definitions, you can convert Newt Gingrich into a socialist and I'm sure that there are some right wing whackos who believe that Newt is a socialist. He just doesn't fit the traditional definition.

And, as you point out about Sanders, "He's not advocating anything very socialist though."

You can say that again.

But, she pretty clearly wants to assure folks that Sanders is not a socialist (as that term was traditionally defined), that he is a Democratic Socialist which "is a very big term, people mean a lot of different things by it." Bernie begins the tape by saying that "Democratic Socialism means that in a democratic, civilized society, the wealthiest people and the largest corporations must pay their fair share of taxes." (Using that definition, just about everyone is a Democratic Socialist. See if you can think of any politician who does not think that everyone should pay their "fair share" of taxes. They just disagree as to what constitutes a fair share.)

Ms. Piven then states that Democratic Socialism means that there should be "democratic control over the main functions of the economy and that could happen in a variety of ways." She then goes on to assure that "he's not proposing to take over anything. He's just proposing to redistribute the concentrated wealth that we have been producing in this society to make sure that everybody, young people have jobs, to make sure that people working have medical leave that they can spend some time with their children, to make sure that they have health care. These are minimal things in rich, industrial countries, everywhere except the United States."

She makes Democratic Socialism sound very much like an extension of the New Deal and Great Society. I agree with everything that she says and I think that most Democrats agree with what she says. So, maybe I'm a Democratic Socialist as she wants to define that term.

But, I am not a Socialist as that term has been traditionally defined. And, neither is Bernie Sanders.

and if you can get everyone to agree to that definition, then no one should fear it. The government has been redistributing wealth for a long, long time (sometimes from the poor to the rich) and the government has been passing employment laws (maximum hours, minimum wage, OSHA, workers' compensation, disability insurance, labor laws, Social Security, family leave, health insurance, etc.) for more than 100 years. Worker protections can and should be expanded. And, if we can elect enough Democrats to Congress, those protections will be expanded. There is always more that can be done. That's the progressive philosophy.

Democratic socialism means democratic control over the main parts of the economy, which can be achieved through a variety of different strategies including giving the government more of a role in production and distribution, or through workers self management, for example.

Bernie Sanders' policies aren't socialism by this definition but they are sort of inching in that direction with something like a national health insurance program.

Bernie is a socialist but his policies are not.

many of us who insist that is what he does. There is a real difference between a socialist and a Democratic Socialist. The mixed economy that FDR and many other great thinkers created was very close to a Democratic Socialist states that were set up in Europe after the war through the Marshal Plan.

That's the impression that I am left with - that a Democratic Socialist is much different than a socialist and that no one has yet clearly defined the exact contours of what it means to be a Democratic Socialist in America. For some reason, I think much of the public is being left with the apparently false impression that Sanders is calling himself a socialist in the traditional sense. I appreciate you and everyone else clarifying that for me.

is part capitalism and part socialism = a mixed economy.

It's just that my generation always used that term - mixed economy. And, of course, a mixed economy can include a ton of different specific policies on health, labor, etc. I would like to think that all of these mixed economies could learn from the experience of others. Certainly, the United States could learn much from some of these other countries about developing a health care system that affords access to more people. And others might be able to learn some things from us about advancing the frontiers of medical technology.

Anyway, thanks again.