Bernie worshiping dictators, not Denmark
Bernie Sanders is no democratic socialist, he’s sympathetic with hardline communist regimes, making excuses for their failures promoting what he believes good they’ve supposedly done all while blaming America first on foreign policy and economic grounds.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sanders isn't a European social democrat, warm toward Denmark and Norway. He's a lifelong communist -- a man who declared himself fully on board with the nationalization of nearly every major American industry in the 1970s -- and an advocate for anti-Americanism abroad.
This week, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the socialist Democratic presidential front-runner, made waves when he merely reiterated his lifelong warmth toward the viciously evil Cuban communist regime. Brushing off the human rights violations of Fidel Castro -- a man whose revolution ended with the murder or imprisonment of tens of thousands of his countrymen, and decades of impoverishment and repression for millions -- Sanders explained: "We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba, but you know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad. ... When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing, even though Fidel Castro did it?"
But, of course, Sanders hasn't merely praised Castro's literacy programs (which, by the way, were propagandistic exploits. Cuba had an 80 percent literacy rate before Castro's coup). Back in the 1980s, Sanders explained that he was "physically nauseated" by former President John F. Kennedy's "hatred for the Cuban revolution." In 1989, Sanders stated after visiting Cuba: "I did not see a hungry child. I did not see any homeless people." He said that the Cuban people "had an almost religious affection" for Castro.
As it turns out, there is hardly a single communist regime of the past half-century for which Sanders has not expressed some level of moral support. This week, Sanders went out of his way to praise China, explaining: "It's is an authoritarian country. ... But can anyone deny -- I mean, the facts are clear -- that they have taken more people out of extreme poverty than any country in history?" Naturally, Sanders neglects to mention that China's embrace of free trade and profit margin in the 1990s was responsible for that rise from poverty. That would cut against his socialist worldview.
Then there's the Nicaraguan communist regime of Daniel Ortega, which murdered thousands. Sanders celebrated the Sandinista revolution in the 1980s (he attended a rally at which protesters chanted, "the Yankee will die"), visited Nicaragua and returned to tut-tut Ortega's human rights abuses by citing Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. It's no wonder Ortega has endorsed Sanders for the presidency.
Or how about the Venezuelan regime? Sanders refused to call socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro a dictator as late as last year, and refused to call opposition Juan Guaido the legitimate leader of the country. The Sanders Senate website carried an editorial for years that favorably compared the regime of Hugo Chavez with the poverty record of the United States.
And, of course, there's Sanders' long record of propagandizing on behalf of the Soviet regime. Not only did Sanders visit the Soviet Union for a honeymoon/business trip with his new wife in 1988; he returned and declared that Moscow had "the most effective mass transit system" he had ever seen. He then celebrated that the Soviets were moving "forward into some of the early visions of their revolution, what their revolution was about in 1917."
Sanders isn't a European social democrat, warm toward Denmark and Norway. He's a lifelong communist -- a man who declared himself fully on board with the nationalization of nearly every major American industry in the 1970s -- and an advocate for anti-Americanism abroad.
The fact that it has taken until the verge of his nomination as the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee for members of the media and fellow Democrats to take note of this rather important truth demonstrates that the left's gatekeeping function has been irrevocably broken.
Tags
Who is online
339 visitors
As it turns out, there is hardly a single communist regime of the past half-century for which Sanders has not expressed some level of moral support. This week, Sanders went out of his way to praise China, explaining: "It's is an authoritarian country. ... But can anyone deny -- I mean, the facts are clear -- that they have taken more people out of extreme poverty than any country in history?" Naturally, Sanders neglects to mention that China's embrace of free trade and profit margin in the 1990s was responsible for that rise from poverty. That would cut against his socialist worldview.
Then there's the Nicaraguan communist regime of Daniel Ortega, which murdered thousands. Sanders celebrated the Sandinista revolution in the 1980s (he attended a rally at which protesters chanted, "the Yankee will die"), visited Nicaragua and returned to tut-tut Ortega's human rights abuses by citing Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. It's no wonder Ortega has endorsed Sanders for the presidency.
Or how about the Venezuelan regime? Sanders refused to call socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro a dictator as late as last year, and refused to call opposition Juan Guaido the legitimate leader of the country. The Sanders Senate website carried an editorial for years that favorably compared the regime of Hugo Chavez with the poverty record of the United States.
And, of course, there's Sanders' long record of propagandizing on behalf of the Soviet regime. Not only did Sanders visit the Soviet Union for a honeymoon/business trip with his new wife in 1988; he returned and declared that Moscow had "the most effective mass transit system" he had ever seen. He then celebrated that the Soviets were moving "forward into some of the early visions of their revolution, what their revolution was about in 1917."
Sanders isn't a European social democrat, warm toward Denmark and Norway. He's a lifelong communist -- a man who declared himself fully on board with the nationalization of nearly every major American industry in the 1970s -- and an advocate for anti-Americanism abroad.
[Deleted]
The author admits that Sanders rejects authoritarian systems and notes that he has indeed noted good things in those systems.
I read this piece looking for where the author has evidence that Sanders praises any of the following:
I did not find it.
Noting that Russia has a cool high-speed train system, that Cuba has a healthcare system, etc. does not make one a card-carrying communist. Supporting items on the above list, however, would.
Sanders routinely denounces authoritarian rule. I have yet to see anything that suggests he thinks single party class-system rule is good. Or that a brutal regime based on murder and torture is a good idea. Or that a nation should have a centrally planned command economy where the State, not the free market, is in control. I have yet to see him denounce liberty or decry democracy.
Got any of that to show? Because, after all, that is what is meant by 'communism' per the model of the former USSR and variants. Or is there a different definition of 'communism' I should use to properly represent the meaning of this author?
This week, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the socialist Democratic presidential front-runner, made waves when he merely reiterated his lifelong warmth toward the viciously evil Cuban communist regime. Brushing off the human rights violations of Fidel Castro -- a man whose revolution ended with the murder or imprisonment of tens of thousands of his countrymen, and decades of impoverishment and repression for millions -- Sanders explained: "We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba, but you know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad. ... When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing, even though Fidel Castro did it?"
But, of course, Sanders hasn't merely praised Castro's literacy programs (which, by the way, were propagandistic exploits. Cuba had an 80 percent literacy rate before Castro's coup). Back in the 1980s, Sanders explained that he was "physically nauseated" by former President John F. Kennedy's "hatred for the Cuban revolution." In 1989, Sanders stated after visiting Cuba: "I did not see a hungry child. I did not see any homeless people." He said that the Cuban people "had an almost religious affection" for Castro.
Sanders routinely denounces authoritarian rule. I have yet to see anything that suggests he thinks single party class-system rule is good. Or that a brutal regime based on murder and torture is a good idea. Or that a nation should have a centrally planned command economy where the State, not the free market, is in control. I have yet to see him denounce liberty or decry democracy.
Got any of that to show? Because, after all, that is what is meant by 'communism' per the model of the former USSR and variants. Or is there a different definition of 'communism' I should use to properly represent the meaning of this author?
Well, what is your take of the China comment:
"It's is an authoritarian country. ... But can anyone deny -- I mean, the facts are clear -- that they have taken more people out of extreme poverty than any country in history?"
That is an enigmatic Sanders making a comment following his typical pattern. He declares his opposition to authoritarianism (presumably to make things clear so that his subsequent words are properly interpreted) and then points out that in spite of their authoritarian rule they have done some things right (as he sees it). In this case, he finds that bringing people out of extreme poverty is a good thing.
So do you interpret his words to mean he favors 'communism' per Red China? If not, how do you interpret his words?
It is very telling when someone truncates a quote right before the actual point is provided. Why try to misrepresent the guy? After all, if you cannot make an honest point to support your point of view maybe you should question your point of view.
And if you are simply repeating from some source that did the truncation, I encourage you to do your own research and listen to what the man said. While I personally think he is tone deaf to political correctness, there is no excuse for misrepresenting what someone says.
It is definitely good to properly represent someone.
That, now, is bizarre reasoning. Note that people try to frame Sanders like that lady. But Sanders does not claim that the former USSR was good because people are waiting in a bread line, he was saying that there exists much worse human suffering around the world.
See, now you are doing exactly what I just referenced. How can you possibly go from admiring a feat of engineering (Stalin did not build the damn thing; engineers and builders in the former USSR built it) to a conclusion that the admirer is really saying that Stalin was a good man.
How on Earth can you honestly conclude such a thing?
Other than your irrationally low and extremely biased opinion of him what evidence do you have that his intentions are the opposite of what he has always represented them to be?
You are the one putting words in his mouth. Ask yourself that question.
Spot on.
It’s interesting watching him simultaneously defending both Bloomberg and Sanders from the faults they have that Conservative Republicans have rightfully pointed out. And Bloomberg and Sanders and thee most loyal supporters can’t stand the other and his supporters. It is at least entertaining to read.
Launching a derail for your own seed?
Has he denounced authoritarian rule? Yes. To me, there is a naivety in his praise of the programs of the communist regimes, while at the same time denouncing authoritarian rule though. He is the missing link of socialism. He knows where the path that leads to utopia is, and how to avoid the path that leads to authoritarian rule. To me, he claims he is selling firewood, but gets upset when people claim he is really selling fire.
Where does he praise that which is a defining characteristic of authoritarian rule?
That is the point. He praises things like efficient transportation, education, healthcare, etc. He does not praise:
If Sanders were advocating the above, then I would label him a 'communist' per the former USSR because that would be justified. Obviously Sanders is not out there advocating any of the above.
The irony, or perhaps hypocrisy, is that he is siting the programs of communist regimes, touting the effectiveness, efficacy, what have you, and getting pissed when people point out the obvious fact that he is praising communist regimes. I fully understand that he claims to have disdain for authoritarianism. I simply find it ironic that the pie in the sky examples come from authoritarian regimes. If I listen to his words. He doesn't love them, but he sure loves what they do, and wholly believes than anything he dreams up will not become a sucking chest wound.
Other than he apparently had the Chris Mathews reaction to Castro's rise to power.
Effective mass transportation, education, healthcare are not defining characteristics of communist regimes. I would find it significant if Sanders were pushing for a command economy or authoritarian rule or eliminating democracy. But he is not. He points to programs that could appear in any nation.
Technically he is not praising the regime. He is pointing to specific things he likes while holistically declaring the regime to be wrong. He repeatedly decries authoritarian rule. That should be recognized.
Sanders is a strange bird. I do not understand why he does not recognize at least some element of political correctness. But, he simply does not.
TiG, I appreciate your comments on here, and you are measured in the wide majority of those. That said, and please don't take offense, but I had to chuckle at the above statement, which is why I find this ironic, and I assume why this is even a topic on NT.
He points to programs that could appear in any nation...but...he just has an affinity toward siting the programs of communist regimes.
I'd say too strange, but there is no denying that he has a following. That is more the fault of the Democrats than it is Republicans'. Again, as I've read of you, no different than Trump. Platitudes and posturing will eventually result in something, although I don't think the pillars of either party wanted to believe that something would be a shift in the base. It's the old tale of the frogs in the boiling water, painting yourself into a corner, etc.
I would never want to try to explain the psychology of Sanders. As I have noted, he is largely an enigma. What politician in the USA runs around for decades calling himself a 'socialist' when the USA (in general)?:
Seems like he purposely positions himself as an outsider and underdog. That is why I remain surprised at how well he does.
All I care to do on the topic of Sanders is look at the facts and make a reasoned assessment accordingly about what he is trying to accomplish.
Which is why I will pause to read your comments.
Thanks. I appreciate when someone reads comments and tries to understand them without presuming some nefarious intent or agenda.
Unfortunately, that seems to be rare in social media. The more common situation is to jump to (and stubbornly stick to ... and repeat) conclusions. For example, jumping to the conclusion that I seek to normalize Sanders because I wrote an article challenging the absurd belief (stated by Bloomberg and by posters here on NT) that he is a 'communist' per the former USSR rather than the blatantly obvious fact that he is a down-the-middle-of-the-plate social democrat (per Nordic nations and much of Europe).
Your intent is clear.
Hopefully that is the case. I always try to be clear. And if someone misunderstands my intent, when I correct that misunderstanding I would expect that to be accepted. I would not expect someone to insist that they know my intent better than I do.
I was discussing the issue with my dad, several months ago. At the very least, he appears to be the candidate on the left that is being up front.
I think the phenomenon that interests me is the low congressional approval rating, contrasted with the high reelection rates. To me, the numbers indicate that there is a general feeling that congress is doing a poor job, but not my congressman, not the congressional leaders I like. Bernie and Trump, I think, are both products of the general discontent, nationally, but at the state level? Some one else is clearly over cooking the grits, not my guy or gal.
I agree that discontent with politicians of status quo is a common factor to the supporters of Sanders and Trump.
Oh for sure. Donny is revolution from the right while Bernie is revolution from the left.
The difference being that Trumps revolution is a just cause despite the protests of the left and ever fewer establishment republicans of the never trump Lincoln project. Bernie’s revolution is nothing more than snake oil economics being pedaled by a commie charlatan.
Fucking propaganda BS. This stupid article is no better than those saying Trump worships fascist dictators because he praised Putin and Un.
Agreed. If only we could encourage people to stop putting up partisan crap hit pieces and engage in thoughtful analysis based on facts and reason.
Yup. There are several reasons not to like Sanders' politics, but I suppose calling him a Pinko Commie gets the click-bait audience right in the feels.
We can’t wait to watch the Bernie vs Little Mike democrat shootout where the losers supporters would prefer Trump over their winner either way.
The Trump effect ... encouraging supporters to engage in grade-school name calling based on physical attributes.
Seems as though this really is elementary school.
Anti Trump rhetoric often amounts to elementary school level language and dialogue from that side of the debate.
The kind of juvenile labeling language exemplified by Trump.
And the types of labeling of Trump by his domestic juvenile opposition across America goes far beyond any mild phrases Trump uses on said opponents.
If Billy calls Joey a 'poo-poo head' would you argue that Joey should call Billy 'fatty face'?
How many times has the financial sector burned down Cuba?
Why is it that the financial and business sectors turn to Red Scare tactics for every self-imposed screw up? Are we to believe that communism is so much worse than our economic system that regularly burns down the country?
Why would a communist President be worse than a supply-side President? Both economic theories have failed spectacularly. Even the USSR understood that it was necessary to build and maintain an industrial economy. Communist China has become the second largest world economy because of a strong industrial foundation for its economy. Communist countries have been producers. What have the capitalists done to the United States?
The United States economy is badly broken. Our industrial foundation has been weakened and replaced with merchants and middle men. Any industrial nation can economically out perform the United States. Capitalists have forced the United States to become dependent upon economic growth through inflationary money printing rather than creating tangible wealth. Banks, the penultimate symbol of capitalism, have actually destroyed capitalism as a viable means of economic organization for our society. A credit card economy is less resilient and less sustainable than an industrial economy.
Capitalism has failed. There should be little surprise that people will look at other ways to economically organize society. If we, as a country, are required to constantly bail out the financial and business sectors then obviously capitalism isn't working. Privatizing profits while socializing losses is simply stupid economics; not capitalism. Why is that better than communism that promises to socialize profits as well as losses?
By 'communist' I will presume you are referring to 'communism' of the former USSR, Red China, etc. If so then here is why a 'communist' PotUS would be worse:
Sounds great, eh?
How is that different than what we have had?
We've been electing Presidents on their promises to use Executive Orders to bypass Congress. We've been electing Presidents who expropriated the middle class to benefit the financial and business sectors. We've been electing Presidents who use the office in a political manner to benefit their political party rather than the country. We've allowed Presidents the authority to impose non-legislated regulations onto society and command what is allowed and what is not. We've elected Presidents who have militarized our police and have established a national surveillance system to track the movements and actions of ordinary people on the street. We've elected Presidents based on the votes of a fifth of the population; nowhere near a democratic majority. We've been electing Presidents who disparage, demean, and belittle those with differing social, moral, and ideological views. We've been electing Presidents who openly declare what is right and proper with promises to eliminate viewpoints that do not align with their declarations. We've been electing Presidents who define what it means to be American based upon their ideological world view without regard for the viewpoints of others.
How have supply-side Presidents been any different than a communist President would be?
Those who have been favored by the governing class in the United States obviously prefer the status quo. But that status quo isn't favoring enough people any longer. Buying votes with borrowed money has become too expensive to be sustainable.
Nerm, I am not going to answer such a ridiculous question. I will instead ask why you choose to put forth such an absurd question? To what end?
So, ignore the question and avoid scrutinizing the status quo. Complacency requires no effort, after all.
We are not interested n ether communism nor socialism. We are and always will be capitalist as a nation and people. Trump is making the populist choices needed to restore manufacturing and create a balance between free and fair trade.
Is the economy of the United States really capitalist? What is the distinction between socializing financial losses and socialism? What differentiates the concentration of finance into a centrally planned, command and control institution from communism?
Socialism and communism are about supply-side economics; not civil rights. Socialism and communism are about central planning and command and control of the producing segment of the economy. China is the supplier for the United States and China is communist. The claim that the United States economy is capitalist doesn't withstand scrutiny when the economy is dependent upon communist producers.
Fair trade that makes the United States dependent upon socialist and communist producers doesn't make the economy of the United States capitalist. The financial sector of the United States economy has made the United States dependent upon communism. And the financial sector has adopted many of the characteristics associated with socialism and communism.
If the United States had a capitalist economy then finance would be supporting factories and domestic producers rather than off-shoring jobs. Right now the United States is under threat of experiencing disruptions in the supply of pharmaceuticals because China controls supply. Is that really capitalism?
Yes. By definition. The preponderance of means of production and means of distribution are owned and controlled by the aristocracy of the private sector and not under decentralized, democratic control by the people.
Socialism is an economic system featuring decentralized, democratic control over the means of production and distribution. 'Socializing financial losses' is not an economic system so the comparison is odd, to say the least.
The command economy of 'communism' such as that exemplified by the former USSR is one in which the productive resources of the economy are owned and controlled by the state which determines supply and demand by edict rather than by using the forces of a free market.
Finance is but one strand in the fabric of the economy of a nation. The bulk of the economy deals with the productive resources that sustain life and living conditions. Centralized, state control over some aspect of society in a nation does not mean the socio-economic/political system of that nation is 'communist'. Diluting the definition of 'communism' to make an argument is not going to be very effective. Stick with the meaning of defined terms. There is little debate on the defining characteristics of 'communism' exemplified by the former USSR and variants.
That distinction is less profound when the financial sector controls the state.
What happens when the productive resources are not within the nation? The United States has become dependent upon foreign productive resources owned or controlled by foreign governments. How much of what is consumed in the United States has been produced by privately owned enterprises in the United States?
China is communist and does exert control over the means of production through a mix of state ownership, central planning, and command and control authority. And China is a major source of supply for the United States. If the United States is being supplied by foreign communist producers then how can the economy of the United States be capitalist?
Since the distinctions are based upon ownership of productive resources then consumption of communist controlled production doesn't appear to support the idea that the United States economy is capitalist. The distinctions between socialism, communism, and capitalism are not based upon who owns the means of consumption.
I do not know what that is supposed to mean. A sector controlling the state which enables its existence?
It is still capitalism. If a minority predominantly controls the productive resources of an economy you have capitalism. Trade policies do not turn a nation's economy from capitalism to something else.
A declaration is not an argument. China does not control the productive resources of our economy. Finally, China's economy is a mixture of state capitalism and private capitalism.
I see word play but no persuasive argument.