June 13, 2019

"Sanders’s Speech About Socialism Was Deeply Unserious/In the senator’s view, the threat of autocracy comes exclusively from the right."

Writes Yascha Mounk in The Atlantic:
If Sanders was coy about the details of a “socialist” economy, he was downright disdainful of the notion that a speech on socialism and authoritarianism should seriously grapple with the long history of socialist movements that have ended in dictatorship. In his view, the threat of autocracy comes exclusively from the right. Just as in the 1930s, “America and the world are once again moving towards authoritarianism.” This danger is driven by “right-wing forces of oligarchy, corporatism, nationalism, racism, and xenophobia.” The only answer that will stave off fascism is, you guessed it, “democratic socialism.”

Thus Sanders name-checked Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini but remained silent about Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. And while he rightly decried the autocratic tendencies of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, he neglected to mention leftist autocrats such as Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, Cuba’s Raúl Castro, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, Zimbabwe’s Emmerson Mnangagwa, or North Korea’s Kim Jung Un. Indeed, the only connection between socialism and autocracy that Sanders was willing to acknowledge is the one that exists in the feverish imagination of the ignorant right: He decried the “red-baiting” in which Republicans have long engaged.

The implication was obvious. Anybody who was hoping for a clear account of the differences between Sanders’s political ambitions and those of autocratic socialist regimes is a fellow traveler of Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Donald Trump, and the Heritage Foundation....

The speech Sanders gave was not serious.
It's enough (and it's better) to say "not serious." The headline writer came up with "deeply unserious," and you may know I have a thing about the word "deeply" (click the tag). The headline writer must have felt pressure to bump it up to "deeply unserious," which seems snazzy and contemporary and (ironically) less serious. "Deeply" especially annoys when it modifies something that lacks depth — unless humor is intended, but this isn't a subject for humor. We're talking about the oppression and murder of millions. To deploy humor would be... deeply shallow. See what I mean?

158 comments:

Unknown said...

Is there any humor left on the left? Or is it all "The last person to stop clapping will be executed?"

that said, it's not a bit surprising that Sanders cannot talk about the 100 million communist/socialist murders.... he likely doesn't see anything actually wrong with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Ho Chi Minh.

I mean, Sanders honeymooned in Moscow! He loves Stalin!

I would like to see someone like Howard or Readering explain how they disagree with Mao and Stalin and the rest of the gang though. Were they wrong to kill so many? If so, when did they go off the rails? And when will today's leftists go too far?

Chuck can chime in too, as he's pretty well in sync with far left socialists nowadays, and enthusiastically supports them stomping on people's rights. All to "get trump and his damn supporters!"

--Vance

Lucid-Ideas said...

Thoroughly disagree with her take. What Sanders implies when saying "autocracy only comes from the right" is - in essence - "it's those mean and evil right-wing megalomaniacs that force our hand and make us into left-wing megalomaniacs...we had no choice."

In this view, Pol Pot and Mao were actually defending their peoples' stomachs from the influences of imperialist capitalist grains of rice. Better dead than fed, right Bernie?

gilbar said...

This danger is driven by “right-wing forces of oligarchy, corporatism, nationalism, racism, and xenophobia.”

Thus Sanders name-checked Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini

Yes, But; did he Ever name Any "right-wing" forces? Or just Socialist ones?

Michael K said...

Sanders learned Socialism from experts. On his honeymoon in the Soviet Union.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

some lefty-du-jour had cast the atrocities of the Superstars of Socialism as "excesses"--
hey-- ok, so they got a little carried away. Some people did stuff.

Bernie's gonna get it right this time. U watch.

Sebastian said...

"We're talking about the oppression and murder of millions."

Who dat we? The left either does not talk about it or justifies the breaking of omelettes as not-murder.

Honest leftists, like Eric Hobsbawm, don't mind the killing fields, as long as they bury the class enemies.

robother said...

Bernie is like every other Red Diaper baby I ran across when living in NYC in the 70s: no enemies to the Left. That ice axe to Trotsky's head was an effective teachable moment.

Fernandinande said...

Thus Sanders name-checked Adolf Hitler

The head of the National Socialists Party ?

and Benito Mussolini

The National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party ?

but remained silent about Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.

They weren't socialists, they were even worse.

madAsHell said...

Deeply garnered!!

chuck said...

> On his honeymoon in the Soviet Union.

I expect he learned it as a child at home.

Wince said...

He decried the “red-baiting” in which Republicans have long engaged.

... And the Democrats have revived, with a vengeance.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

All the world's bad ideology is leftwing. All of it. There is no right wing.

Hitler is a leftist
Mussolini is a leftist
Stalin is a leftist
Mao is a leftist
Castro is a leftist
Hugo and Maduro are leftists
and on and on...

Otto said...

See what I mean? Yes we deeply get what you mean.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Serious enough for his communist supporters.

Beasts of England said...

'...a speech on socialism and authoritarianism should seriously grapple with the long history of socialist movements that have ended in dictatorship.'

True socialism would never end in a dictatorship - it's all about freedom and liberty!! And killing tens of millions of people every so often, but, let's not get bogged down by the details...

FullMoon said...

I just cannot wait for a Cafe. This is great news

The jury just rendered its verdict on punitive damages in the Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College case.

Daniel McGraw, our reporter in the courtroom, reports that in addition to the $11.2 million compensatory damages awarded last Friday, the jury awarded a total of $33 million in punitive damages, which will probably be reduced by the court to $22 million because of the state law cap at twice compensatory (it’s not an absolute cap, but probably will apply here). That brings the total damages to $33 million. We will have the breakdown soon. The jury also awarded attorney’s fees, to be determined by the judge.

Lucid-Ideas said...

There's a definite arithmetic going on in the minds of guys (and gals and otherkins) like Sanders. See...you need to view it from their perspective as active and passive, commission and omission.

Right-wingers are bad because they're very active murderers...mostly. What with gas chambers and detailed record-keeping and fancy Hugo-Boss uniforms.

Left-wingers are less-bad because their murders are more passive. Less industrialization. More starvation. More refugees. Less toilet paper. For lefties, theirs are depredations of love. Like the Kulak that dies for the dear leader.

Just a bunch of eggs broken during shipping to paradise. It's all about intention. They get very angry that nobody else sees that and that no one understands 'real' socialism has never been tried!

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Oberlin is leftwing, and therefore, pure evil.

The Godfather said...

“Deeply shallow”. I love it. I’m going to start using it. It will be perfect for discussing the 2020 campaign. Thanks Althouse!

Beasts of England said...

Deeply shallow is the jumbo shrimp of oxymorons.

daskol said...

I appreciate Mounk's point, but the article is annoying for the assertion of Hitler and Mussolini as right-wing. He's using a left-wing/socialist tactic of branding what they dislike as right-wing. It's an unwitting capitulation to the very ideologies and movements he's criticizing.

daskol said...

Deeply disturbed works well in terms of deeply as a modifier.

rehajm said...

My parents lived in Burlington in the early 70s and said Bernie was an idiot then, too. Fewer fascists in VT then, too.

Wince said...

"...and you may know I have a thing about the word "deeply"... "Deeply" especially annoys when it modifies something that lacks depth."

I hate to admit it, but I actually like this song (reminds me of Smokey Robinson).

Truly Madly Deeply

I'll be your dream, I'll be your wish, I'll be your fantasy.
I'll be your hope, I'll be your love, be everything that you need.

I love you more with every breath, truly madly deeply do

I will be strong, I will be faithful 'cause I'm counting on a new beginning.
A reason for living. A deeper meaning.

I want to stand with you on a mountain.
I want to bathe with you in the sea.
I want to lay like this forever.
Until the sky falls down on me

And when the stars are shining brightly in the velvet sky,
I'll make a wish send it to heaven then make you want to cry
The tears of joy for all the pleasure and the certainty.
That we're surrounded by the comfort and protection of
The highest power, in lonely hours, the tears devour you

Francisco D said...

It is interesting to see a negative article about Bernie in The Atlantic.

It will be more interesting when (and if) other Dem organs come out with negative pieces as well.

My LifeLongDemocrat (LLD) wife will not vote for Bernie, but my commie sister is already working for his campaign.

Bernie will push the more "acceptable" Dem candidates (i.e., those who are not obvious communists) to the left. Will the LLDs follow?

Henry said...

There is no right wing is a pretty funny religion.

Imagine there's no right wing.
It's an easy thing to sing.
Heaven has no wings at all.
And hell is all leftwing.

buwaya said...

Duterte actually is or was a socialist. Indeed, he was a Maoist. He was a student, protege and follower of Jose Maria Sison, the founder of the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines, of which the military wing is the New Peoples Army.

Duterte has "moderated", in that sense, his personality being practical and not the lost-in-metaphysics sort of third-world academic Maoists. But he has at least attempted, at various times, rather active measures against big business, with no political support even on his own side, because the country as a whole is resolutely non-ideological, popular as he is. They elected the man, not his ideas, which may seem a curious thing, but less so if you understand that very foreign culture. So everything goes along in the liberalizing path set by the previous administration.

Duterte has several times said that he is frustrated and regrets winning the election - because he cannot do what he wants to do.

Sanders is of course wrong in detail about right or left in his various demons.

Scott M said...

I've put the adverb "deeply" alongside the earnest use of "fierce" or "fiercely" as a warning strobe about the probable content of a given article.

Fen said...

This danger is driven by “right-wing forces of oligarchy, corporatism, nationalism, racism, and xenophobia.

"Which is why it's okay to punch and shoot them. Like the NYTs, we do have standards but the extreme nature of our enemies justifies abandoning our ethics and principles."

DKWalser said...

I appreciate Mounk's point, but the article is annoying for the assertion of Hitler and Mussolini as right-wing. He's using a left-wing/socialist tactic of branding what they dislike as right-wing.

The idea that Hitler was a man of the right originated with Stalin. In Stalin's dispute with Hitler -- before WWII -- Stalin tried to distinguish the ideologies of the USSR and Hitler's Germany by claiming Hitler was right-wing. Maybe, but only if your reference point is Stalin. Hitler may have been to Stalin's right, but so were all the other international political leaders of the day. At the same time, virtually every other political leader, with the possible exception of Stalin, was to Hitler's right, too.

Paul said...

Yea... Bernie was just as unserious as Hitler was when he wrote Mein Kampf or when Mao wrote his little red book.

narciso said...

Fascinating I thought he was part of the EDSA coalition, His chief rival is fmr navy captain triana, or has that situation changed, hes a blunt instrument, similar to Estrada no,

Sanders speech is echo of Henry Wallace about 70 some years ago, and of Jeremy Corbyn across the pond,

Fen said...

"Each according to his need" Sanders lectured from the porch of his 3rd house.

Narayanan said...

So how is Feminism different from Socialism?

Since Feminist segue from Sanders is to argue only Patriarchy can be autocratic oppressive etc.

BUMBLE BEE said...

So Full Of Shit sums it up!

buwaya said...

"I thought he was part of the EDSA coalition"

His mother was a very active supporter of Aquino.
He himself was appointed by Aquino as acting vice-mayor of Davao.
Perhaps a political reward, I don't know.

narciso said...

Stalin miscalculated the 2ns international sought to take out the social democrats, waging a campaign not only disparaging them as social fascists, but through the labor union, jan valtin aka albert krug, related that part of the operation in the night left behind, in latin America, it was former communist, eudocio ravines of the apra movement, that showed the yenan way,

BUMBLE BEE said...

Oberlin Kiss My Entire Ass!

Achilles said...

This danger is driven by “right-wing forces of oligarchy, corporatism, nationalism, racism, and xenophobia.”

Says the guy in a movement responsible for over 100 million killings.

They need to be defeated.

narciso said...


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/calling-trump-mentally-ill-wont-solve-anything.html

narciso said...

that's what is considered balance, so political psychiatry isn't exactly her thing, but not opposed either,

daskol said...

Bernie is a deeply flawed candidate.

gspencer said...

Who wants to be around when the Democrats decide, despite the ABUNDANCE of evidence that socialism has always lead to Hilter, Stalin, Mao, and countless others, that socialism is the way to go.

Fen said...

So how is Feminism different from Socialism?

Feminism as we once knew it was hijacked by the Marxists to serve as their bitch. That's why it devolved from empowering women to pitting men and women against each other.

Class warfare, race warfare, gender warfare.

Really, we are going to have to kill all the Marxists.

Leland said...

Now I understand why they call the modern Republican 'far right'; to them, Hitler and Mussolini are centrists socialists compared to the left's preferable communist socialists Stalin and Mao. If all free markets did was prevent the starvation of millions in labor camps; they would still be ahead by several hundred million lives saved over socialism.

narciso said...

some people take a long time to get a clue:


https://www.marxists.org/archive/radek/1935/dzerzhinski.htm

ken in tx said...

The preamble to the constitution of the American Legion, which is recited at the beginning of every meeting, includes an opposition to "the autocracy of the masses and the classes". In other words, both left and right.

Hagar said...

True socialism has never been tried
and neither has powering our electric grid with perpetual motion machines.

daskol said...

There are places where people burn cowpies for fuel, though.

Hagar said...

Mussolini was an intellectual and came up with the governmental theory of "fascism."
Hitler was not a man for theories; it was only about him and his "iron will."

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Unseriously deep.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Browndog said...

Near as I can tell, there are only 3 political categories left in American politics:

-Far right

-Extremist (far, far right)

-democratics

Media still uses the terms "moderate, independent", but use it as a euphemism for democrats...er, democratics as a way to show 'everyone' is democratic except for a small, evil minority.

Automatic_Wing said...

Seriously, what else would you expect from a guy who honeymooned in the Soviet Union in 1980, and came away thinking that everything was going great over there.

rhhardin said...

A young mind filled with inexperience. (Lautreamont)

n.n said...

The American right is libertarian, which is neither socialist nor fascist nor dictatorial. Perhaps he is referring to the left (totalitarian)-right (anarchist) nexus.

gspencer said...

"In his [Sander's] view, the threat of autocracy comes exclusively from the right."

And the lies keep on coming. In the political spectrum, total government, which is the essence of socialism, is exclusively of the extreme left. The extreme right is no government which stated otherwise is complete chaos, anarchy. Our model of government is that of a constitutional republic: some government which itself is limited by law, otherwise individuals are free to do as they wish restrained of course by the rights of other individuals. Freedom without anarchy.

A nice explanation is offered in the video Overview of America,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MzxC8Mqupw

madAsHell said...

Bernie always looks like he's rolling up a booger between his thumb, and index finger. Does he flick them, or eat them??

n.n said...

Diversity, political congruence, redistributive change, Pro-Choice quasi-religion, twilight faith, #HateLovesAbortion and other wicked solutions.

rhhardin said...

Catcher in the Rye is deeply inauthentic.

narciso said...

He was a hippy kicked out of his own commune, not a criminal like koba or an intellectual polemicist like lenin, not even a military strategist like Trotsky, but yet he prevailed,

bagoh20 said...

It's like listening to someone explain the benefits and promise of a new Inquisition, but with a lot more murder. It's for the holy love of income equality.

It is true that the "rich keep getting richer", but the poor are getting much richer too. That's how it works in real life. If the rich start getting poorer, you better start hoarding the mac & cheese.

Michael K said...

huck said...
> On his honeymoon in the Soviet Union.

I expect he learned it as a child at home.


No, that was Mayor Buttpeg. His daddy is a Marxist professor at Notre Dame, of all places.

The thing about Mussolini and Hitler, as someone pointed out above, is that Mussolini was a real Socialist. Edfited a Socialiost newspaper and all that.

A journalist and politician, Mussolini had been a leading member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) from 1910 to 1914,[5] but was expelled from the PSI for advocating military intervention in World War I, in opposition to the party's stance on neutrality.

Had Mussolini never met Hitler, he would have died in bed honored by his people.

Hitler was another thing altogether. He called the Nazi's "Socialist" but he was all about revenge for WWI. The corporate supporters thought he was a useful tool for the military vets who bought the "stab in the back" argument. The Socialists were the ones that signed the VersaillesTreaty and got blamed. Wilson was a fool. Lloyd George and Clemenceau had no intention of following his lead on the peace.

Woodrow Wilson gave us Hitler. I'm not sure the results would have been any better with anyone else.

Hitler was not really right or left. He was for revenge and so was Clemenceau. We should have stayed out and, if they were smart so should Britain.

rhhardin said...

Long waves travel faster than short waves, in deep water. Really long waves can travel at the speed of earth rotation. They're noticed as tides.

narciso said...

Wilson certainly let Clemenceau and Lloyd George set the terms, this created the reparations which provoked ruinous hyperinflation that was partially mitigated by the Dawes plan, a recent novel by Ian K Smith, misrepresents the last, Although it Teddy Roosevelt had been President as in Sterlings Black Chamber would much have turned out differently,

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The left are great at fear mongering. They are also full of sh*.

George Bush was going to be A dictator AND he was going to usher in THEOCRACY!

narciso said...

and the other Bobbsey twin:


https://nypost.com/2019/06/04/de-blasio-says-anti-semitism-is-strictly-a-right-wing-movement/

rhhardin said...

Hitler was another thing altogether. He called the Nazi's "Socialist" but he was all about revenge for WWI.

Hitler was trying to do the right thing to save the world.

In Hitler's case he made a mistake in anthropology and a mistake in economics, so his plan only turned out to be evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQGMjDQ-TJ8

Can we think of anyplace else a mistake in anthropology and a mistake in economics might turn out to be evil in trying to save the world.

Michael K said...

I just finished reading a series of novels about the RFC and the origin of the RAF.

The author is English and the hostility towards the 1914 generals and politicians is pretty intense. The army had done badly against the Boers and the two leading generals were amazingly incompetent. They had no business against the Germans.

narciso said...

It was Haig and French right, if memory served, and Hamilton, who commanded forces at Gallipoli


https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/holiday-chatterbox/news-story/3cf3dd49f05a14447331f48292b6c795

most of his stuff is pay walled now

Seeing Red said...

Duterte has several times said that he is frustrated and regrets winning the election - because he cannot do what he wants to do.

Not enough to step down.

narciso said...

Yes I lean more to Niall Ferguson's Pity of War thesis, maybe it was inevitable that Germany and the UK clash, certainly Massie's Dreadnoughts suggests this, but that it happened at this time,

Big Mike said...

In [Sanders'}] view, the threat of autocracy comes exclusively from the right.

This is so easy to debunk that one has to ask the question, is Bernie lying to us or is he lying to himself?

h said...

To sell the notion of socialism, you must convince people (especially apparently young people, who can be convinced) that your life will be better, and you won't have to make any sacrifices. You can get free tuition. You can get free health care. You can get universal income supplement. And someone else will pay. So you don't have to work harder, study longer, imagine more creatively. Sit back. Watch TV. The government will take care of it.

buwaya said...

"It's like listening to someone explain the benefits and promise of a new Inquisition"

Well, I am all for a new Inquisition.
It would have saved a lot of trouble had they kept the old one.

narciso said...

why have they not suffered further legal repercussions, rhetorical question,


https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/13/justice-democrats-primary-moderates/

rhhardin said...

What a day, what a day, for an auto-da-fe
(Candide)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbTaD2C08xU&list=RDtbTaD2C08xU&index=1

gg6 said...

Frankly, Althouse, I think you ignored the real and truly interesting story here - The Atlantic (!!) has bombed the presumably #1/#2 candidate for POTUS in the democrat party?! To me, that raises 'serious' questions as to who has Atlantic magazine decided to support/root for? It doesn't - for me anyway - raise any actually interesting grammar/rhetoric questions much less clever-isms about "deeply shallow" - unless one is in the humor business as a sort of Snarky Safire.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

I don't know about the main front generals. I read a BBC article on misconceptions about WWI some years ago (can't find it now) and I think it said they did as well as anyone could have, and indeed were always adapting rather than trying to fight the last war as is usually claimed. Since the BBC is no friend of the military (or of Britain, really) I tended to believe it.

As for Gallipoli, Stopford was unbelievable. He made an *unopposed* landing and instead of pushing for the high ground immediately, dug in on the beach. The troops were swimming as the opportunity slipped away. (He had never been in command of a real operation, but it was his "turn"). The main campaign general began to hear something was wrong at Stoppford's location, but the RN did not have the launch it had promised for his use, and he was unable to move to the scene, or even get any accurate reports. Churchill, who was blamed for the whole mess despite having wanted a naval bombardment campaign with some marines to spike the cannons at the reduced forts, waxes incredulous in his The World Crisis and spares some understated British invective for Stoppford:

Lieutentant-General Sir Frederick Stopford, Commander of the 9th Corps, had arrived with his staff in the sloop Jonquil at daylight on the 7th. He had remained on the Jonquil on account of the facilities of wireless and signal communication. During the afternoon of the 8th he had paid a visit to the shore. General Stopford was and agreeable and cultivated gentleman who fifteen years before had served in the South African War as Military Secretary to Sir Redvers Buller. After commanding the London District, he had left the Army in 1909, and had lived until the outbreak of the great struggle in a retirement unhappily marked by much ill-health. From this seclusion he had been drawn, like many others, by the enormous expansion of our land forces. He had been entrusted by Lord Kitchener with the task of training an Army Corps in England, and he now found himself for the first time in his life in a position of high and direct responsibility and in actual command of troops in the presence of the enemy. In these circumstances we are certainly entitled to assume that he did his best.

Rick said...

It's revealing the left still whines about red baiting even as they fascist-bait. They trust their followers simply don't care about standards.

And they're right.

Beasts of England said...

'As for Gallipoli, Stopford was unbelievable.'

Didn't he bring his wife and children to Gallipoli? Regardless, the campaign is one of the most interesting, re: WWI. The events at ANZAC Cove alone are fascinating.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

The events at ANZAC Cove alone are fascinating.

After the high command finally got someone on the scene to go around Stopford, they tasked an immediate operation to take important high ground. In the event, this was done by pulling a regiment back from important high ground they had already taken (without, in what Churchill described as a remarkable failure of communication, having told anyone on the beach that they had taken it). So they were *not* able to advance immediately, being pulled back first, and the ground the high command wanted taken could not be taken in the morning, and the strategic high gound they *had* taken was never regained..

Bobber Fleck said...

I'd love to hear Bernie explain why socialists build walls to keep people in while America needs a wall to keep people out.

readering said...

I'd prefer seriously unserious.

buwaya said...

Duterte can't step down because his Vice President Leni Robredo is one of the opposition, and moreover her election was close and was challenged by her own opponent, Bong Bong Marcos. The election controversy is still being fought out.

Bong Bong is going to be extremely unpopular in Manila circles - Marcos is a bad word there.

On the other hand, Bong Bong has considerable political support especially after the sweeping victories of pro-Duterte candidates in the legislative elections of 2019. There is every possibility of a legislative/Supreme Court set-aside of the 2016 election results. Not a very defensible constitutional business, probably, but not at all unlikely.

So, if Duterte resigns there is a high probability that politics will get very ugly. Not good for the economy, perception of the rule of law, etc.

Fen said...

Frankly, Althouse, I think you ignored the real and truly interesting story here - The Atlantic (!!) has bombed the presumably #1/#2 candidate for POTUS in the democrat party?! To me, that raises 'serious' questions as to who has Atlantic magazine decided to support/root for?

In many ways, Sander's lefty support is a mirror of the grass roots right-wing support for Trump. Both groups feel there is a Uniparty that no longer represents their own interests, just the Establishment (E) wings of both parties. Sanders is as much a threat to the Clinton Establishment as Trump was to the Bush Establishment.

Perhaps what we are witnessing are media shills for the Democrat Wing of the Establishment Party (E) running a hit piece against their version of Trump.

What's weird though - for all the noise the Bernie Bros make about Trump "stealing" the election from Hillary, they still call themselves Democrats after the DNC ACTUALLY stole the nomination from their own guy. Why, it's almost as if socialists have no integrity.

Let's ask Bernie. Does anyone know if the Socialist is holding court in his 2nd house or his 3rd?

TJM said...

Sanders is a hypocritcal, braindead ideologue. Spent his honeymoon in the USSR but found the time to acquire 3 homes and live way better than the "proletariat." Hey, he sounds like the typical, modern Dem pol who makes millions off of Goobermint while decrying the Capitalism that brings in the taxes to make their scams possible

Bobber Fleck said...

Blogger rhhardin said...

"Catcher in the Rye is deeply inauthentic."

I thought Catcher in the Wry was deeply humorous.

Fen said...

What's weird though - for all the noise the Bernie Bros make about Trump "stealing" the election from Hillary, they still call themselves Democrats after the DNC ACTUALLY stole the nomination from their own guy.

OTOH, Democrats are still sticking by the party even though that party attempted to remove the legitimately elected President of the United States via a soft coup attempt. I'm not sure they are even American any more. It's certainly not patriotic, and goes against everything America stands for.

I really don't see how any good person can identify with the Democrat party these days.

chickelit said...

FullMoon said...I just cannot wait for a Cafe. This is great news

The jury just rendered its verdict on punitive damages in the Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College case.


The whole thing sounds like a Spike Lee movie script (Do The Right Thing): Black Oberlin students resent the mere fact that the 5th generation bakery exists -- the unstated reason is that the owners are white. Unchecked resentment leads to irrational behavior by University and $22MM damages. Underaged shoplifter is lionized.

Fen said...

Hey, he sounds like the typical, modern Dem pol who makes millions off of Goobermint while decrying the Capitalism that brings in the taxes to make their scams possible

Sanders intends to be a key member of the Inner Party. Passing us on our bicycles in his limo on his way to dine on Kobe steak and give a speech about "each according to his needs". Remember Occupy? Their "thought leaders" were held to a different set of rules than the rubes, and were given privileges for the "burden" of sitting around stoned philosophizing.

It's both hysterical and pathetic that kids keep falling for this bullshit.

narciso said...

and over in minitrue 3, or is it 2:


https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2019/06/13/cbs-crew-reads-gayle-king-article-about-how-great-gayle-king

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Hey, he sounds like the typical, modern Dem pol who makes millions off of Goobermint while decrying the Capitalism that brings in the taxes to make their scams possible

That - on a bumper sticker.
Tho - leftwing heads will explode.

stevew said...

Some concepts, embodied in words, require, nor allow, no modifier. Unique is an example. Unserious is another. There are not grades of unseriousness.

As for authoritarians in history, most, if not all, have been from the left; Socialists, Communists, whatever. Authoritarianism is a feature of these sorts of governments and regimes - it is a requirement. Modern day American Conservatives that favor broad Federal Government power are, indeed, authoritarian. But many at least pay lip service to the idea of diffused and local political power and influence, and general personal liberty.

Bernie is a kook - trying very diligently to displace Crazy Uncle Joe.

Michael K said...

In many ways, Sander's lefty support is a mirror of the grass roots right-wing support for Trump. Both groups feel there is a Uniparty that no longer represents their own interests, just the Establishment (E) wings of both parties. Sanders is as much a threat to the Clinton Establishment as Trump was to the Bush Establishment.

Good observation. Bernie is a silly old fool but the voters have some of the same issues.

narciso said...

I have particular reason to despise the times,

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/06/12/martel-5-times-the-new-york-times-defended-communism/

madAsHell said...

Really long waves can travel at the speed of earth rotation. They're noticed as tides.

Headlines news........"Really long wave radiation can cause cancer at the beach".

madAsHell said...

On Facebook, the headline would be accompanied by an advertisement for a RLW-PF 50 cream.

Michael K said...

It was Haig and French right, if memory served,

Yes, French was cavalry general who wanted to reenact the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Haig was a rich general (the scotch family) who had his headquarters 60 miles behind the front.

There is a bit in "Once an Eagle" that probably applies to Haig, Foch was only put in charge at the end.

The author seems quite informed, something like WEB Griffin's books.

Churchill had the right idea with the Dardenelles but the navy let him down. It was the only chance for a flanking maneuver.

Patrick Henry was right! said...

It's not President T. Roosevelt who would have saved us from Wilson, it was President Taft, who would have been handily reelected in 1912 save for the arrogance of the progressive, T. Roosevelt.
T. Roosevelt wouldn't wait his turn.

WK said...

Seriously undeep.

narciso said...

I read once upon an eagle, and I skimmed his follow up

Is seabury the authors name:

narciso said...

Surprise:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7138869/Charges-dropped-against-8-people-Flint-water-scandal.html?fbclid=IwAR15kxPyC1WE7w4eDXHHhddpO5IWGd6ie-AbLmAUOOzIXgBrFr6aw9B5fWw

Browndog said...

In many ways, Sander's lefty support is a mirror of the grass roots right-wing support for Trump. Both groups feel there is a Uniparty that no longer represents their own interests, just the Establishment (E) wings of both parties. Sanders is as much a threat to the Clinton Establishment as Trump was to the Bush Establishment.

I completely disagree. Unless, the measure of 'many ways' is simply enthusiasm.

Michael K said...

President Taft, who would have been handily reelected in 1912 save for the arrogance of the progressive, T. Roosevelt.

Exactly.

Anton Myrer wrote "Once an Eagle." He was a Marine in the Pacific. The book is about the army, though.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

The reactionary establishmentarians at The Atlantic want Sanders down and Warren or (in a pinch) Biden up. This has nothing to do with an aversion to socialism.

The Mouse that Roared said...

Just spitballing here, but wouldn't the "far right" opposite of Socialism be Aristocracy? That is what Socialism in Europe originated in opposition to.

Socialism, in its utopian ideal is the rule of the people.
Aristocracy was the rule of hereditary elites.

Socialism ultimately evolves into Aristocracy. Just a new one.

Was this why there has never been a serious Socialist party in the United States? A republican form of government really isn't on that Left-Right axis.

traditionalguy said...

Marxism in action is a cruel joke. It uses stupid fools to kill off the existing competition and then it gleefully kills them off too. The last man alive with a Secret Police murder team wins.

It is like The Big Ten deciding the SEC and ACC and Big 12 must be eliminated to make football more equal. After they are all murdered, then Ohio State decides all the other Big 10 teams must be killed too to protect the Big 10. After that, all College Football outcomes are decided by a thug in Columbus and only a few friends of the team are allowed to play in Fake Football games that must be attended at $100,000 per ticket, or you are killed.

narciso said...

Except socialism in it's current form hates the petit bourgeois, call then tea party or brexiteers, and at least one labour lesder.

narciso said...

leader. Like benn or foot were of aristocratic bent

Browndog said...

It is like The Big Ten deciding the SEC and ACC and Big 12 must be eliminated to make football more equal. After they are all murdered, then Ohio State decides all the other Big 10 teams must be killed too to protect the Big 10. After that, all College Football outcomes are decided by a thug in Columbus and only a few friends of the team are allowed to play in Fake Football games that must be attended at $100,000 per ticket, or you are killed.

Pretty much.

chuck said...

> No, that was Mayor Buttpeg. His daddy is a Marxist professor at Notre Dame, of all places.

Information about Sanders' childhood is surprisingly hard to find.

narciso said...

The Russians probably have a big file so do the sandinistas

gilbar said...

someone said....T. Roosevelt wouldn't wait his turn.

Well, Roosevelt GAVE UP his turn when he didn't run for reelection in 1908 (on account of because of his 1904 pledge not to run for a third term)....

THEN wanted his turn BACK in 1912 (which caused there to be 2 republicans running against one democrat)
When you decide not to run for re-reelection, you shouldn't run for re-reelection

Narr said...

The Allied navies didn't really let Churchill down at Gallipoli, they were sunk by the Turks.
The first attempt was a British-French (older) BB lunge right up the gullet. It's conceivable, barely, that another try might have worked, but they'd just had four or five major ships sunk or badly damaged.

Everyone, esp. Stopford as already noted, screwed the pooch on the landings later; it didn't help that Kemal and some of the best Turkish troops were on hand.

I don't bother with Left-Right stuff, much. When people get outraged if Hitler is called a lefty (and there is much truth in that, or it wouldn't sting so) there's another and better way to look at the great political idiotologies of the 20th C.: There were Black and Brown Fascists and there were Red Fascists. They were--and still are--fascists.

Narr
Of course most major Marxist-Leninist dudes were pathetically Germanophile too, but that can wait

Narr said...

Dardanelles, sorry. The straits.

Narr
Too many comments to remember

Narr said...

OK, dammit, I'm going for a walk after I remember to suggest--

Profoundly Shallow

Narr
"deeply shallow" was used on secular right years ago

Sprezzatura said...

At least folks who type "deeply...." are not yet going w/ all caps.

Raise yur hand if ya remember when Althouse was doin' aton of ridiculous all caps typing.

I count won.


Anywho, pulled out the jammy, and killed the punanny
And my dick runs deep so deeply put her ass to sleep


Just sayin'

Big Mike said...

Information about Sanders' childhood is surprisingly hard to find.

Well, we know that he tried to join a commune in Vermont and was thrown out for being too lazy. The details are in We Were as Gods by Kate Daloz. You can buy the book using the Althouse Amazon portal.

madAsHell said...

Information about Sanders' childhood is surprisingly hard to find.

Haven't we seen this pattern before??

Kirk Parker said...

chuck,

"Information about Sanders' childhood is surprisingly hard to find."

So far, no one has attempted to write the definitive account of Sanders' childhood because it isn't over yet.

Michael K said...

The Allied navies didn't really let Churchill down at Gallipoli, they were sunk by the Turks.

There are arguments about that.

The fear of their fire was actually the deciding factor of the fortunes of the day. For five hours the [destroyer] Wear and picket boats had experienced, quite unperturbed and without any loss, a far more intense fire from them than the sweepers encountered... the latter could not be induced to face it, and sweep ahead of the ships in 'B' line.... I had the almost indelible impression that we were in the presence of a beaten foe. I thought he was beaten at 2 pm. I knew he was beaten at 4 pm — and at midnight I knew with still greater clarity that he was absolutely beaten; and it only remained for us to organise a proper sweeping force and devise some means of dealing with drifting mines to reap the fruits of our efforts.

Three battle ships were sunk.

Eric said...

It's not unserious to not see autocracy in Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot. It's delusional. Bernie is finished.

narciso said...

Well it fits a pattern;
https://mobile.twitter.com/NickSSolheim/status/1139205858297024518

Kevin said...

When people on the left like Hickenlooper point out betting the party on Democratic Socialism is a losers game, this is what they mean.

The left has gotten away for so long putting out the idea that totalitarianism can only come from the right, that they've come to believe it themselves.

Any debate about what Democratic Socialism actually means only serves to shatter that illusion in the electorate.

And where can the Party of ever more government power go from there?

buwaya said...

"The Allied navies didn't really let Churchill down at Gallipoli, they were sunk by the Turks.
The first attempt was a British-French (older) BB lunge right up the gullet. It's conceivable, barely, that another try might have worked, but they'd just had four or five major ships sunk or badly damaged."

The battleships in question were obsolete for their intended purpose in naval warfare and nearly useless for any other purpose, other than what they were being put to, shore bombardment. Indeed, many of them were reduced to serving exclusively as transports starting the next year. Their crews were much more valuable than these old ships. The ships themselves were expendable.

The part that was very badly run was the minesweeping, see above. In general the Naval leadership on the spot was not of the best.

tim in vermont said...

Socialism is only good. stuff so everybody should want it.

The Mouse that Roared said...

In the Russian Revolution, its supporters all thought they were on the "to each according to his needs" side of the equation.

This is how Socialists sell it to the gullible.

After Socialism was implemented, the gulag taught millions that, in fact, they were on the "from each according to his ability" side. Alas, this realization came too late.

This is how it has always played out.

I'm sure this time it will be different.

Darkisland said...

I wonder how many here have actually read Marx? I particularly wonder about how many of our resident leftists like Cook, Dick, readering, Howard, have read him?

Especially Capital. You don't have to get far, page 3-4 in my Penguin edition to find him explaining why mass murder is a basic requirement of Marxist socialism. It is a basic requirement of every other kind of socialism as well.

Socialism just won't work without mass murder. It will just barely work, for a while, with it.

I recommend everyone read it. It is long but, for all his faults and faulty analysis, he is a very readable writer

His journalism on the US War Between the States is also pretty good reading. I think it is available on Gutenberg. I know I found it somewhere a few years back.

John Henry

Big Mike said...

@Mouse, well, it works on Cookie.

narciso said...

Or here:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/08/06.htm

He was a diligent researcher and observer

rightguy said...

I think the essential problem with socialism is that the central government has massive power: if the government has control over a citizen's economic life, then they have power over that citizen. I think that it is why Hitler was socialist- it was a means to the end of taking power over Germany. I doubt that this idea hasn't occurred to other socialist leaders and that is why so many socialist regimes end up as totalitarian.

Bay Area Guy said...

The "Black Book of Communism" written by French scholars Courtois et al gives the definitive account of the many deaths the Commies committed in the 20th Century (100 Million).

So any modern day socialist moron (like Crazy Bernie) has to face facts - this is what socialists actually did in practice, not in theory. This is what they do when they get power. If God forbid, AOC and her types ever get control over the reigns of power in the good ole USA, don't say you weren't warned.

They are either wolves or wolves in sheep's clothing, but we know what these fuckers do.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Whiny Oberlin Neo-fascists. "We're cash poor" boo hoo.

The rest of humanity-noramls" You didn't care about destroying a local family businessmen over a lie.

Love the twitter comments.

"guess they weren't too worried about the bakery's liquidity or cash flow issues when they labeled them racists and cut contracts and cheered on protests."

&

"This is such a crock. The owner of this store has been ruined because he stopped shoplifters and was beaten for doing so, which, apparently makes one a racist."

Oberlin College IS the modern left. Oberlin is CNN, MSNBC, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Strozk, Schit, Nadler, and Mueller

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

and Maddow. Oberlin IS Maddow. Maddow is Oberlin.

Narr said...

OK, Dardenelles. 3 old BBs sunk, 3 deeply damaged; the MAIN MINE FIELDS (ten lines) had not been encountered yet. Keyes was a participant writing almost twenty years later about what he was certain of in the middle of the night: fine, so what. Opinion.

I know the crews were more important than the hulls; that's another reason NOT to risk more.
Give me a little credit.

Narr
No sure things

RichardJohnson said...

Michael K @ 3:58 PM
Sanders learned Socialism from experts. On his honeymoon in the Soviet Union

That was in 1988. Bernie's mind was made up decades before. Consider Bernie's defense of Totalitarian Socialism as practiced in Cuba, from 1969. Sanders in the Vermont Freeman _"Cuba: The Other Side of the Story." [1969] [page 5).
Consider Bernie's Adventures on a Stalinist Kibbutz in 1963.

In 1963, when Sanders traveled to Israel to work on a kibbutz there were scores of American Jewish students who also volunteered. So it is rather strange that Sanders has consistently refused to tell the press about his time there and the kibbutz he worked on. When asked, he and his campaign dodged the issue.

So why would Bernie dodge questions about the kibbutz he stayed on, just like he would later dodge questions about Venezuela during his 2016 campaign?

Now we have the answer from the Times of Israel. In 1990, Sanders, who was preparing to assume his newly elected position as a member of Congress, was interviewed by Israeli journalist Yossi Melman. Sanders told him that he visited Israel “as a guest of the leftist Zionist Hashomer Hatzair movement and stayed at its affiliated kibbutz, northeast of Haifa.”

Calling Kibbutz Shaar Haamakim simply “leftist” does not sufficiently describe the ideology of Hashomer Hatzair members. At the time, most American students who were Zionists belonged to Habonim, a mainstream group affiliated with Israel’s governing party, Labor.

Hashomer Hatzair, to the contrary, was the affiliate of Mapam, the coalition political group in Israel that united a few different left-wing groups into one political organization. By 1969, Hashomer Hatzair had entered into a unity pact with Labor. Despite this, its own members remained left-wing socialists. Today, its descendants support Israel’s far left political party, Meretz.

But in 1963 when Sanders worked on Hashomer’s kibbutz, its members considered themselves Marxist-Zionists, and they held a pro-Soviet orientation which included supporting Soviet foreign policy. Their ideological orientation on Zionism and socialism came not from the social democrats of the Socialist International, who were strongly anti-Communist and anti-fascist during the years of World War II (like Germany’s Willy Brandt), but from a rather unknown figure, a Zionist named Ber Borochov.


The kicker is that Kibbutz Shaar Haamakim was too far left for Noam Chomsky.

Another young person who gravitated to the group was Noam Chomsky, who told an interviewer: “I liked the kibbutz life and the kibbutz ideals.” In a Tablet interview conducted by David Samuels, Chomsky said he had gravitated to a Hashomer Hatzair kibbutz, but could never actually join it. That was “because in those days they were split between Stalinist and Trotskyite, and I was anti-Leninist.” But he admired their commitment to a binational state and their efforts to create “Arab-Jewish working-class cooperation” and a “socialist binationalist Palestine.” A binational state would in effect have meant the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

Yes, the ships were obsolete and basically expendable. The crews not so much, but Churchill was furious that with the almost unimaginable losses the army was taking daily on the main front thatthe navy was afraid to risk a few crews.

After the war, it was discovered that the mine hit by the the attempt to force the straits was the last one laid. Again Churchill laid out the incredible run of bad luck (of course he was being attacked constantly so he was an interested party in how the history was viewed): The naval plan was Admiral Carden's. He had a nervous breakdown and left the field. There was another admiral in the theater who actually had senority and liked the plan, but he deferred to Carden's second in command out of military courtesy, and it turned out that that guy didn't like the plan, and never gave it a good try after the mine was hit. Then, of course, Fisher was unhelpfully all over the place.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

The World Crisis finally came out of copyright this year. Hopefully it will all be on Project Gutenberg soon.

Michael K said...

The part that was very badly run was the minesweeping, see above. In general the Naval leadership on the spot was not of the best.

England had not had a war since 1815. The army was rotten to the core and the Navy was not much better,

"Something seems to be wrong with our bloody ships, sir." As the battle cruisers blew up at Jutland.

This writer whose books I am reading is entertaining and does not pull punches about the army or the navy.

We had a thread at Ricochet and I included the Victoria and Camperdown disaster. Idiocy.

Part of it,.

However, the columns continued to turn towards each other and only moments before the collision did the captains of the two ships appreciate that this was not going to happen. Even then, they still waited for permission to take the action that might have prevented the collision. Captain Bourke of Victoria asked Tryon three times for permission to order the engines astern; he acted only after he had received that permission. At the last moment, Tryon shouted across to Markham, "Go astern! Go astern!"


By the time that both captains had ordered the engines on their respective ships reversed, it was too late, and Camperdown's ram struck the starboard side of Victoria about 12 ft (3.7 m) below the waterline and penetrated 9 ft (2.7 m) into it. The engines were left turning astern, and this caused the ram to be withdrawn and to let in more seawater before all the watertight doors on Victoria had been closed. Two minutes after the collision, the ships were moving apart.

It was a hot afternoon, and a Thursday, which was traditionally a rest time for the crew. All hatches and means of ventilation were open to cool the ship. There was a 100 sq ft (9.3 m2) hole in the side of the ship open to the sea, but initially, Tryon and his navigation officer, Staff Commander Thomas Hawkins-Smith, did not believe the ship would sink,


It did.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

Another of Churchill's complaints about the RN when he became First Lord of the Admiralty (Navy Secretary) what that to be a Captain in the RN, it was never necessary to have read a book, and in fact of the great books written on Naval operations and strategy, none were by Brits. He basically established an RN Anapolis.

Communication was bad too, and I think this continued to happen during his tenure long enough that history has to assign him some blame. The Goben affair was bad communications, the events leading up to the battle of the Falkland Islands were bad communication, the failure of the RN to close during the Battle of Jutland was bad communication..

PhilD said...

"Sir Julian Stafford Corbett (12 November 1854 at Walcot House, Kennington Road, Lambeth – 21 September 1922 at Manor Farm, Stopham, Pulborough, Sussex) was a prominent British naval historian and geostrategist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, whose works helped shape the Royal Navy's reforms of that era. One of his most famous works is 'Some Principles of Maritime Strategy', which remains a classic among students of naval warfare. Corbett was a good friend and ally of naval reformer Admiral John "Jacky" Fisher, the First Sea Lord. He was chosen to write the official history of British Naval operations during World War I."

Bruce Hayden said...

“Socialism, in its utopian ideal is the rule of the people.
Aristocracy was the rule of hereditary elites.

Socialism ultimately evolves into Aristocracy. Just a new one.”

Which is, of course, one of the flaws of socialism. It is built on the perfectibility of mankind, so inevitably loses to human nature, and one of the things that they fail to take into account is the natural desire to take care of their offspring, and give them as much benefit as they can. In a socialist workers paradise, everyone is even, but some are more even than everyone else, and one of the perks of being more equal is making your kids more equal too.

Socialism inevitably fails because of this. This second generation has no moral legitimacy. They rule, when it is their turn, through force, because they otherwise lack legitimacy, having come to power through nepotism, when philosophically the only legitimate route to power is competence.

Roughcoat said...

England had not had a war since 1815.

You can't be serious.

Just off the top of my head: Crimean War, First and Second Afghan Wars,Zulu Wars, Boer War, Anglo-Sudan War, Boxer Rebellion Relief Expedition, etc., etc.

Many small wars hither and yon. Read, e.g., "Queen Victoria's Little Wars." Quote: "From 1837 to 1901, in Asia, China, Canada, Africa, and elsewhere, military expedition were constantly being undertaken to protect resident Britons or British interests, to extend a frontier, to repel an attack, avenge an insult, or suppress a mutiny or rebellion. Continuous warfare became an accepted way of life in the Victorian era, and in the process the size of the British Empire quadrupled."

In 1914 the British Expeditionary Force -- which a sneering Kaiser Wilhelm called "that contemptible little army" -- was then one of the world's finest fighting forces. It boasted an especially proficient artillery arm, but the professional soldiers who made up the rank-and-file, and who proudly dubbed themselves the "Old Contemptibles," were superb soldiers. They famous for their high-rate of sustained aimed rifle fire, which the Germans mistook for machine-gun fire. The BEF acquitted itself magnificently in the war's early fighting, most notably at Mons and Le Cateau, where, vastly outnumbered, it fought von Kluck's enormous First Army to temporary standstills, and in doing so delaying the German right wing's wheel through northern France and buying much needed time for French forces on the BEF's right to withdraw to the Marne.

As for the Battle of Jutland: the Royal Navy won. The German High Seas Fleet broke contact and fled back to port, and never again dared to challenged the British Grand Fleet on the scale of the Jutland battle.

readering said...

The only good thing about so many candidates is that when Sanders falls (sooner the better) it will be harder for his followers to blame nominee. Tories now taking about uniting around stop Boris strategy. One can do that wit electorate of MPs, not unwieldy primary and caucus system.

chickelit said...

Socialism inevitably fails because of this. This second generation has no moral legitimacy. They rule, when it is their turn, through force, because they otherwise lack legitimacy, having come to power through nepotism, when philosophically the only legitimate route to power is competence.

When your insight is coupled with declining birth rates — coupled with cultural factors — the results are scary. Dooming, in fact and in deed.

Crazy World said...

Time to just point and laugh (or cry, I have family in Vermont).

Narayanan said...

I want to plant this question for Sanders to address (hello Dave Begley)
Should Cuba become part of the USA and how soon

Big Mike said...

I don’t think Sanders understands what happened in 2016. He thinks he and he crackpot ideas were popular, but in reality he was nothing more than the latest ABH candidate — anyone but Hillary. Then he combined ineptitude as a candidate with a DNC totally owned by the Clintons to lose — or avoid winning — the nomination, so Donald Trump became the ABH. But Trump has had enough successes that he will be hard to dislodge. I know that I only voted for him in 2016 because I would have crawled for many miles over broken glass to vote against Hillary Clinton, but right now I would do the same to vote FOR Donald Trump.

Rusty said...

Capitalism is organic. God only knows what socialism is. It certainly isn't the natural progression of human nature. More likr the regression of human nature.

tim in vermont said...

Capitalism is organic. That’s why socialism winds up in dictatorship. The same people who defend abortion as something that women are going to do anyway, no matter what laws are in place and object to prohibitions on abortion because they would require an intrusive state to enforce them violating a woman’s privacy, never give a second thought to the intrusiveness that would accompany an attempt to stamp out organic economic activity between people.

It is little wonder that once the state apparatus is in place, bad actors will scheme to get control of it and more often than not, the worst will gain control.

Bruce Hayden said...

I don’t think that many proto socialists understand why socialism is doomed to fail, and in many cases, fail quite bloodily, like we are seeing right now in Venezuela.

Back maybe a half century ago, when taking my first economics classes, one prof suggested that socialism/communism might have a place when taking a very poor country, and amassing enough capital for economic takeoff. The problem is that population growth can easily eat up any increases in GDP. What is needed is to push consumption down until enough capital can be accumulated for economic takeoff. And, indeed, the sample given was China. What the prof didn’t seem to consider was that they could also get there by crashing their birth rate, which the proceeded to do with their brutal One Child policy.

But after that, after economic takeoff, the economy quickly becomes too complex to efficiently plan centrally. Quasi capitalistic economies allow supply and demand to operate, and the resulting prices determine resource allocations. This allows complex economies to operate efficiently, getting what people want to them fairly efficiently. A socialist system doesn’t allow price to be used to signal supply and demand. Instead, these decisions are ultimately made centrally. Bernie Sanders has to believe that we only need a couple of soap choices, because his choice of economics, socialism, is incapable of allocating production and distribution of more choices. Something that is done automatically in a market economy.

Another problem with socialism is that central allocation of resources requires accurate knowledge of production and sales. But tat economic system doesn’t reward for accuracy in this area, but rather for making production goals. A perfected man would put the collective ahead of personal gain, but humankind has, yet, to be perfected into being perfect altruistic socialist men. Instead, greed rears its head, with people very naturally putting their own welfare above that of the collective. So, if they get paid more for making more product, then very often, their reports to their bosses will show higher production. And this will happen even if there is insufficient input resources for the reported output, because, after all, the upstream companies are also reporting increased production, even if none exists. Moreover, quality is hard to quantify, so a lot of fudging goes on there too. The result here is that the mismatch between actual reality versus reported reality increases over time. None of which is good in centrally planning an economy. And, over time, the friction of resource misallocation becomes such a drag that the economy has an ever harder time actually growing.

Birkel said...

The proper distinction is...

Collectivist
v.
Freedom

Never accept the language of your enemies.

Anonymous said...

"...right-wing forces of oligarchy, corporatism, nationalism, racism, and xenophobia..."

You have to be pretty confused about the state of the world to believe that "corporatism" and "oligarchy" are the forces behind contemporary nationalism and "racism".

Sanders is essentially a doddering old Boomer who never made it out of the '60s. (Even if technically he's slightly too old for that label.)

Sam L. said...

Sanders lies. Or has bought into the lies of the Left.

Fen said...

traditional guy: The last man alive with a Secret Police murder team wins.

LOL. Perfect. May I borrow that for a bit?

Bilwick said...

Another statist in denial about the inherent authoritarianism of statism.

Fen said...

and he now found himself for the first time in his life in a position of high and direct responsibility and in actual command of troops in the presence of the enemy. In these circumstances we are certainly entitled to assume that he did his best.

It's a rare man that can effectively lead men into battle. I had the privilege of being commanded by two, and it was like being wingman to Leonidas. They were demi-gods. Built like an NFL linebacker with minds of a high-powered Harvard attorney. Except, instead of nailing Quarterbacks or witnesses on the stand, they were most efficient at hunting and killing humans.