78 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders”

  1. “Of course, national socialism has a long and dishonorable history on the Left.” Basically–although Hitler was in every significant way that I can think of, a man of the Left–the Left theoretically hates it . . . but only in the way that the Al Capone gang hated the Bugs Moran gang, and vice versa, in old Chicago. It’s not like one gang had any real moral superiority over the other.

    1. Hitler was in every significant way that I can think of, a man of the Left

      You might want to think about it a bit longer. Hitler was nationalist, militarist, anti-Marxist, and anti-unions. None of those are positions usually associated with the Left.

      1. Hitler was nationalist, militarist, anti-Marxist, and anti-unions.

        Hilarious:

        Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism” he once remarked, “as I do not hesitate to admit”. He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that “they had never even read Marx”, implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been “a private Russian affair”, whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun”, adding revealingly that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on Marx.

        The Left is just frustrated that their initial rewriting of history is being rectified.

        1. Thanks for taking that, Rand. Typical Jim post, where it’s hard to figure out if the ignorance is feigned (to promote the party line) or actual (as part of the rise of the Stupid Left.) I don’t bother debating with him because it’s useless to debate religionists, particularly dumb ones.

          1. The Soviet Union spend decades convincing the Left that Hitlerism wasn’t a mirror of Stalinism.

            It worked, as we see.

        2. So even though Hitler publicly savaged Marx and persecuted Marxists, and implemented an ideological and economic program that in its essence bore no relation to orthodox Marxism, we’re supposed to consider him a Marxist? By that definition you can consider anyone a Marxist.

          Hitler glorified military conquest; the Left campaigns against militarism and war. He glorified one nation above all others; the Left idealizes international organizations. He glorified cultural and ethnic purity; the Left is multicultural, cosmopolitan and works to mobilize ethnic minorities.

          Hitler learned plenty from the Left, but he was not of it.

          1. So even though Hitler publicly savaged Marx and persecuted Marxists

            If persecuting Marxists is what makes one a right winger, Stalin made Hitler look like a piker.

            He glorified one nation above all others; the Left idealizes international organizations. He glorified cultural and ethnic purity; the Left is multicultural, cosmopolitan and works to mobilize ethnic minorities.

            Really? Stalin didn’t glorify Mother Russia? What “international organizations” did he “idealize” (as oppose to support as allies against his enemies, like the American Communist Party)? If the Left is so multi-culti and cosmopolitan, and such a fan of minorities, how do you rationalize Mao and Pol Pot?

          3. Marxism 101: If you believe that you are a better judge than someone else of what they need, and are willing to implement your judgment with the use of force, you’re a Marxist.

          4. “Hitler glorified military conquest; the Left campaigns against militarism and war. ”

            The left isn’t really anti-war though. And the left certainly isn’t anti-violence as they often use violence in the name of politics.

            “He glorified one nation above all others; the Left idealizes international organizations.”

            There is global socialism and national socialism. That doesn’t mean one or the other isn’t socialism.

            ” He glorified cultural and ethnic purity; the Left is multicultural,”

            First of all, racism isn’t left or right. I know you want to claim racism is right wing but that is utter nonsense.

            ” and works to mobilize ethnic minorities.”

            And here we get back to how Democrats are racist. Mobilizing minorities through racism isn’t not being racist.

          5. “Marxism 101: If you believe that you are a better judge than someone else of what they need, and are willing to implement your judgment with the use of force, you’re a Marxist.”

            Your definition makes it sound like Iran and Saudi Arabia have Marxist governments. I think many if not all authortarian theocracies would be defined as Marxist under your definition, which sounds wrong to me.

          7. He glorified one nation above all others; the Left idealizes international organizations.

            Gosh, I wonder if that’s why he called it National Socialism. Strange how that word Socialism keeps appearing with Nazis.

            From Wiktionary: Nazi (plural Nazis)

            (historical) A member of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly called the NSDAP or Nazi Party).

          8. After WW-II and the virtually collapse of Germany, all the left and far-left parties of Germany except the communists became rabidly anti-communist. The main reason is that unlike the American press, which largely ignored or glossed over Bolshevism, the German papers were filled with constant, lurid accounts of the horrors of it. Mass starvation, the collapse of trade and industry, vast numbers of people being rounded up and shot.

            The German left, including the labor leaders, were determined that such a disaster shouldn’t befall Germany. Whereas Russia was an agrarian country where people could survive a societal collapse through subsistence farming, Germany was a nation of shop keepers and industrial workers who would flat starve and die.

            So the German left and far left had to reassure the masses that they would not make the same mistakes, and they had to go into several areas to fight German communists directly with military force. That’s how Hitler, a radical socialist, got involved.

            When he finally took power, he found he had to retain massive numbers of staff from the Weimar Republic to keep the country running because virtually none of the Nazis had any idea how to run a business or a complex government administration with a host of responsibilities.

            The reason for the strident nationalism in both Italy and Germany was that a long lineage of Marxist revisionist thinking was focused on why the masses hadn’t risen up. It was noted that they would fight for king, country, symbols, mythologies, and charismatic leaders, but not for their own class struggle. So the far left had begun to realize that the masses needed pomp, grandiosity, national myths, and the idea of a struggle against other nations.

            In Mussolini’s case, he realized that traditional Marxism where the workers overthrow the owners wouldn’t work, because in Italy almost everyone worked for their parents, making such a revolution completely pointless. So he recast Marx’s class struggle as a battle between working class nations like Italy and exploitive Anglo/American capitalist nations. Mussolini’s prior jobs, by the way, were working as a communist agitator/propagandist, labor organizer, socialist writer and editor, and he sat on the far right of the Italian Parliament to be as far away as possible from the socialists who had just stiffed him out of the leadership position for the Italian Socialist Party, which he thought was his by right. He swore revenge, and got it.

          9. “I’m sorry that my definition of Marxism sounds wrong to you, Bob.”

            I have two quick questions. It won’t hurt my feelings if you answer with just a yes or a no, although, of course, as a long time reader, I’m interested in any elaboration you care to add. Naturally, I’d be happy to answer questions of yours in return, if you have any. Thanks.

            1) Do you agree that the Saudi royal family believes that they are a better judge of what their subjects need, and are willing to implement their judgment with the use of force?

            2) Do you think that Saudi Arabia has a Marxist government?

          11. No, they do not at all think that, and can’t. What is best for all people was laid out by Allah through His Prophet (PBUH), forever and all time, and the Saudi royal family cannot add nor detract from that truth.

          12. Just an example of everyday life is controlled in Saudi Arabia : Suppose a Saudi wants to open a movie theater….. …well, nope, he can’t, because opening movie theaters is not allowed by the government. Men (and lets not even get started with women) in Saudia Arabia are banned from opening theatres because the rulers know what is good for the citizenry.

          13. Oh, that’s adorable. You imagine that the House of Saud makes its decisions based on what it perceives to be for the good of the citizenry.

            Have you ever heard of “sharia law” and the uprising they’d have to deal with if they violated it to any significant degree?

            Marxism always ultimately results in totalitarianism, but not all totalitarianism is Marxism.

          14. So your argument is that while the Saudi leaders might be hypocritical cynics, the Marxists, well, they really are sincere, and genuinely do want what is best for the people.

          15. No, I just think that they delude themselves along those lines. They also delude themselves that they aren’t religious.

            Have you ever heard the expression about the pave stones of the road to Hell?

      2. In-fighting between different factions doesn’t mean Hitler wasn’t a socialist or a leftist. Just look at how the progressive Democrats attack each other from time to time. #blacklivesmatter attack other Democrats doesn’t mean the black supremacist group aren’t also Democrats.

      3. “Before everything else, the trade unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations.”
        – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

        Hilter didn’t have any problems with labor unions, per se. Just labor unions that refused to tow the Party line.

        Ask Lech Walesa how that differs from labor unions in Communist countries.

        2. “Ask Lech Walesa how that differs from labor unions in Communist countries.”

          Rather sick and twisted how socialist Democrats have turned Solidarity into support for socialism.

  2. He is funded by the Unions. So of course he has to spout the “they took our jobs” mantra. If he was being funded by Goldman Sachs the tune would be different.

  3. I remember the good ol’ days when people on the right lamented cries of “Bu$hitler!” from obscure Democratic Underground types. It’s a sign of the rightward drift of conservatism in America that a well-known publication like NR can call someone like Sanders a Nazi, and that no one on the right feels any sense of shame, given that many of his father’s relatives died at the hands of — you know — actual Nazis.

      1. There is more to socialism than Marxism. The whole movement started way before Marx. He just co-opted it.
        There are libertarian socialists (i.e. anarcho-syndicalists) and there are authoritarian socialists (i.e. marxists) and everything in between like market socialism. But as usual in the US you think marxism is the only kind of socialism…

        National socialism is different in several ways from marxism. The power base is not the same. The power brokers and the power distribution are also not the same. The racial aspect is also not present in marxism. The only similarities are in that both are totalitarian regimes.

          2. “I don’t see how any of that supports your notion that Nazis are right wing.”
            Several Nazi proposals were ultra-conservative. That is why they are commonly viewed as right wing today. They were surely right wing back then when communists actually had an expression in Europe. They defined themselves as in opposition to communists. Mussolini started out gaining power and influence in Italy by using para-military forces to break union strike picket lines and things like that.

            “When has the right wing in the USA ever advocated for a king? You might get punched in the face for even suggesting it.”
            Conservatives come in several different shapes and sizes. The tradition in different countries is not the same so being a conservative is not the same either.

            “Distinctions without difference.”
            I bet it was quite different if you were a jew. Or a landed estate owner. Or an industrial tycoon.

            “There is no socialist movement that totally adheres to any single definition of socialism.”
            Socialism is a spectrum. Marxism is just one part of the spectrum. Here in Europe we call the marxists “communists”. What we call “socialists” are typically market socialists.

            “Depending on your definition, the USSR wasn’t socialist nor Mao nor Venezuela. “
            The USSR and Mao had communist totalitarian regimes with the complete abolition of private property.
            I think in Venezuela they did not get as far as the abolition of private property. They nationalized the oil industry and redistributed the profits at the same time he pumped money into the military. That was basically it. Saudi Arabian Aramco does the same thing. So what?

        2. National socialism is different in several ways from marxism. The power base is not the same. The power brokers and the power distribution are also not the same. The racial aspect is also not present in marxism. The only similarities are in that both are totalitarian regimes.

          Rand isn’t interested in any distinction that pins radical nationalism to the right-wing. The purpose of his revisionist history is to enable him to call his political opponents Nazis. It’s funny that conservative critics long deplored 60’s radicals calling anyone they didn’t like a ‘fascist’. Now the practice has found its home on the right.

          1. Rand isn’t interested in any distinction that pins radical nationalism to the right-wing.

            I have no idea what the “right-wing” means in this context. Limited government? Natural rights? Individualism? Free markets?

          2. You can read about how the Nazis were indeed actual socialists here , here , and here

            What makes you think the Nazis were right wing, as the words left/right are applied to modern political ideologies?

            Want to have some fun? Compare the propaganda posters from the first link from socialist Russia and Germany with the posters produced by the Democrat party for Obama and Hillary. But if you were to compare the posters hanging on the walls of Obama’s former Press Secretary’s home to historical posters from Russia, they would look exactly the same as they are propaganda posters from the USSR.

          3. “right-wing” means in this context
            He means conservative and reactionary. You know the other component part of the Republican mindset that libertarians like you Rand prefer to ignore.

            So reactionary that they even went as far back as worshiping Norse Gods as part of their political platform.

          4. He means conservative and reactionary.

            You mean like the way leftists fight to preserve industrialized government schools and corrupt trade unions, and taxi monopolies?

          5. Dave, from what I read from you in the past, your high horse isn’t nearly as tall as you think it is. I asked you before when the Democrats are going to apologize for Jim Crow laws. And I bring that up here, since you seem to want to avoid the racist past of the party you support. You come here and talk about others, but you never hold yourself to the standard you put forth.

            As far as radical nationalism, the person who routinely talks about increased federalism and federalist control is Jim. Rand has long championed limited government particularly at the national level, and when Bush and the GOP had control in the 2000’s, Rand complained about their growth of the federal government. It is one reason I frequent this blog, because I don’t agree with Homeland Security or the lack of effort to provide real tax cuts rather than reductions in the rate of spending. But Democrats contort support of national defense as radical nationalism, which it never has been and shows a real ignorance of what is meant by nationalism particular in relation to fascism and socialism.

          6. “He means conservative and reactionary”

            Conservative has different definitions too and are often used interchangeably when they shouldn’t be. And reactionary has its roots in the French Revolution meaning the lexicon used at that time puts it to the right, or in favor of more government, which is not what contemporary politics defines as right wing.

            These labels are not accurate descriptions.

            There are different lexicons that use the same words but with different definitions. You can switch between the two lexicons willy nilly. And you were complaining about how people didn’t fully grasp the nuances of different branches of socialism…

          8. Reactionary? You mean like when Dave jumped so fast to condemn conservatives for the Confederate Flag flying over the SC Capital, when it was Fritz Hollings (D) that put it there? Or blaming Republicans for putting the Rebel Flag on the Mississippi Flag, when it was Ronnie Musgrove (D) that made that flag the official flag of Mississippi? I think reactionary is a very good description of Dave’s hysterical response to the SC church shooting. It would be nice if Dave finally chilled out enough to admit to the long history of racism in the Democrat Party.

          9. I asked you before when the Democrats are going to apologize for Jim Crow laws. And I bring that up here, since you seem to want to avoid the racist past of the party you support. You come here and talk about others, but you never hold yourself to the standard you put forth.

            Huh? Oh, well, I don’t have a problem agreeing that the Democratic Party of 150 years ago had a largely racist base. Political parties shift. Read your history, especially about Nixon’s ‘southern strategy’. The old Southern Democrats of old found a new home with guess-which-party.

          10. No, there was no mass party switching. Many times I’ve debated this and gone seat by seat throughout the Southern House and Senate. Virtually no segregationist Democrats switched parties (about half a dozen). Hundreds stayed in office as Democrats, some until 2010. The Democrat party never had a problem with that. They didn’t make up the “party switch” myth until Republicans became competitive in the South during Bill Clinton’s term and took it over during Bush 43 – several decades after the Civil Rights era.

          11. Dave, go read the NYT on your mythical southern strategy.

            You other comments are so much BS. So let me lay out the history for you, Dave: Fritz Holling raised the Confederate Flag over the SC Capital in 1962, that’s not 150 years ago. Democrats continued to vote for him until he retired from the US Senate in 2005. It was only 2001 when Democrat Ronnie Musgrove made the rebel flag the official part of the Mississippi Flag. Nixon died in 1994.

        3. Socialists always want to argue differences without distinctions. There are many forms of socialism but that doesn’t mean they are not socialism. That one group wants to have a global revolution while another only wants a local one isn’t enough of a difference to claim they are totally different ideologies.

          1. Nazism isn’t based on marxism. It was based on Italian fascism with racism and other Germanic peculiarities tacked on top.

            Like I said the power base is totally different. In marxism it is a proletarian revolution to topple the existing power bases which grows into worker directorates. In fascism the power base is actually the existing small and large business owners and the disenfranchised unemployed.

            Some of the fascists in Italy were national syndicalists sure, but other fascists were actually in favor of an absolute monarchy with the King of Italy Victor Emmanuel III as absolute dictator. The only similarities between fascism and communism are insofar that they are both totalitarian regimes. Nothing else.

          3. I don’t see how any of that supports your notion that Nazis are right wing. When has the right wing in the USA ever advocated for a king? You might get punched in the face for even suggesting it.

            “Like I said the power base is totally different.”

            Distinctions without difference.

            There is no socialist movement that totally adheres to any single definition of socialism. Depending on your definition, the USSR wasn’t socialist nor Mao nor Venezuela.

            Feel free to peruse the links I posted earlier.

  4. No one called him a Nazi. He calls himself a socialist. Kevin was merely pointing out that he’s also a nationalist one.

    If calling him a national socialist isn’t meant to associate him with a mid-20th Century political movement in Germany headed by Adolf Hitler and responsible for genocide, I don’t think Williamson would have written the piece, nor do I think you would have linked to it.

      1. Like spending State money to build highways. You think it was a bad idea just because Hitler did it?

          1. Bingo. I’m always amused when I run into a socialist who talks about how great government is because it built roads, and how horrible cars are, and Global Warming!

            Either they’re too dumb to realize their positions are utterly contradictory, or they’re just lying. With the left, it’s often hard to tell.

    2. I like the how dare you compare a socialist with other socialists defense. Are we really supposed to not comment on his socialist ideology? When he says we only need one shoe manufacturer or one deodorant, we should just keep our yappers shut?

      And newsflash: Bernie being Jewish doesn’t mean he is genetically incapable of acting like other socialists. Maybe he wouldn’t advocate for Jews being punished but our Progressive friends have other targets. What Democrats haven’t learned from their past is that it isn’t the targets that make actions wrong but rather the ideology that leads to the tyrannical behavior.

      Ideology isn’t skin deep.

      And it’s not like we don’t have progressive Democrats raiding dissidents homes in night time paramilitary raids or setting up Jim Crow laws at the federal level that target people and groups based on race and perceived political affiliation so examining whether a socialist Democrat will act like other socialist heroes of the Democrat party isn’t out of line but rather required.

      1. And it’s not like we don’t have progressive Democrats raiding dissidents homes in night time paramilitary raids or setting up Jim Crow laws at the federal level that target people and groups based on race and perceived political affiliation

        Yeah, and our FEMA re-education camps are coming to get you.

        2. “Yeah, and our FEMA re-education camps are coming to get you.”

          It’s funny you mention that as Lois Lerner turned over over 100k tax returns and other records to the DOJ and FBI to target dissidents for prosecution and imprisonment. Where they going to pick a few select targets that would serve as examples of what happens when you engage in activism as a non-Democrat or were they actually going to imprison enough to fill a camp, I don’t know. Only the Obama administration knows.

          And surely you are familiar with the John Doe investigations in WI? Democrats raided the homes of their political opponents with paramilitary teams in nighttime raids. Then they prevented them from contacting lawyers or even speaking about what transpired.

          Guess we know why Democrats like to wear Che t-shirts.

          1. There’s also the Clinton appointed Judge that ruled D’Souza mentally incompetent despite all of the state psychiatrist declaring D’Souza mentally sound. Again D’Souza’s crime had nothing to do with mental stability and was no different than what Jon Corzine, except D’Souza did it on a much smaller scale.

            Sorry, the “conspiracy theorist” “Truthers” talking points have been long overplayed by Jim.

      2. Bernie being Jewish doesn’t mean he is genetically incapable of acting like other socialists.

        Proof being: The Jewish have explicitly attempted socialism and communism before and after Marx. The word “kibbutzim”, and the first kibbutz predate the entire modern era.

  5. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would never get any traction if we were serious about the education of our children. We are not, to our shame. Fighting politically is too little, too late.

  6. Bernieverse! Sorry I just love this noun. The question is, is this an expanding universe or contracting universe?

    I’m still waiting for Bernie to win a few key primaries and then he get’s “Fostered”…. In this case, probably a child sex scandal of some kind… It only takes an accusation, proof is optional….

    Dave

  7. “I have no idea what the ‘right-wing’means in this context.” Probably neither does Dave. As I’ve said umpteenth times–and which the new Stupid Left never gets–if put people like Murray Rothbard, Robert LeFevre, Ayn Rand and Leonard Read in the same corral with the KKK and various Nazi and Neo-Nazi political parties, and brand them all “right wing,” the brand has no rational meaning whatsoever. And anyone using it that way is either being deliberately misleading, or just goofy.

    1. When push came to shove your “hero” Ayn Rand came to collect her check from Social Security. As usual for such people it is socialism for me and capitalism for everyone else.

      1. Brilliant refutation of everything Ayn Rand ever said orwrote, Godzilla! To think that some of us may have gotten the wrong impression of you!

        (Seriously: Ever notice how members of the Stupid Left–not Godzilla, of course; he’s obviously a genius–when Ayn Rand gets mentioned, automatically go for the Ad Hominem (or in her case Ad Feminem) instead of actually trying to refute her ideas? You know, instead of saying, “Contrary to Rand, people’s lives and property actually DON’T belong to themselves, and I can prove it by . . .” Gee, I wonder why that is!)

        The Social Security thing seems to be the standard knee-jerk thing to say about Rand. I guess the Stupid Left goes to Party-Line-Com (“When you can’t actually provide a rational counter-argument” or some similar place.

      2. Why shouldn’t she? Didn’t she pay into it?

        If you are trying to cast Social Security as Welfare, then you are knocking out the foundation of the entire program.

      3. Godzilla, does the name Ragnar Danneskjöld mean anything to you? Do you think Ragnar would have left money of his on the table of the socialists? Your comment suggests you have no clue what Ayn Rand wrote.

  8. By the way, if “reactionary” is the sine qua non of “right wing” (as Godzilla seems to think) then there is no more reactionary gang than the “liberal” Hive. If you want to retreat from the Society of Contract to the Society of Status* (or as Leonard Read put it, from the Free Society to the Command Society), you, sir, are a reactionary.

    *see http://www.panarchy.org/maine/contract.html

    1. I have been called a “reactionary” before. I could care less about the label. It just means defending the status quo in some way. IMO the question should be if this is done irrationally, out of some sort of love for tradition, or if it has some actual basis on facts.
      A conservative is a “reactionary” by definition.

      1. It’s a pretty stupid label for conservative, regardless of its political definition. It’s reactionary to destroy a neighborhood pharmacy because a guy dies in police custody. It is reactionary to demand fraternities or sport teams be disbanded because a women makes a mere allegation of rape rather than first letting the investigative process play out. It is reactionary to raid a person’s home because they supported a candidate to whom you disagree. It is reactionary to declare someone mentally unstable because they bundled money for a campaign.

        But then, reactionary is a term developed by Marxist, so no surprise that some here would use it to describe conservatives. It is reactionary to purge millions of people from your population because they don’t agree with your Marxist’s philosophy.

      2. So “liberals” are actually the conservatives of our day? What about conservatives who want to roll back at least some of the Welfare State? Are they defending the status quo, or not?

        1. Heck, what about the “liberals”, who want us to reduce our carbon emissions back to the pre-Industrial age to save the planet. How are they not Reactionaries trying to revert to and maintain a lifestyle given up centuries ago? Far as that goes, the type of Federalism described by many Marxist sounds like Feudalism but supposedly without the need of knights, because everyone will be happy and armies won’t be needed anymore. The terminology is just false labels to use either as masks or foils in debate. And I know, Bilwick, you get that. To you, the terminology is less a mask and more a shining beacon that the person is a devoted orthodox Marxist.

Comments are closed.