Tuesday, August 18, 2015

How Bernie Sanders Proves "Socialism" is No Longer a 4 Letter Word

A position I've held since I took my first college level economics course was that the democrat party was not functionally a political part that advocated democracy.  It was, based on all measures, intents, and actions of its members a socialist party.  Of course, I was laughed at when I said the democrats were socialists because "socialism" and "socialist" were pejoratives we reserved for the evil Soviet empire and communism during the 80's.  However, there in my economics textbook, was statistics showing the government spending just shy of 35% GDP and the democrats were advocating for even MORE spending.  This, combined with my independent mind, convinced me of precisely what the democrat party was.

The next twenty years passed by, and like Overton's Window, we've slowly, but surely moved more and more to the left.  Also during this time my friends who once mocked and ridiculed me as "Oh crazy Clarey!  You funny Republican you!" started having kids, jobs, and adult responsibilities.  And soon I wasn't that "one crazy republican at the party, bringing the buzz down," but a respected economist that even my most ardent detractors of days past had to agree with.

So, as further proof that this country has moved to the left, and quite rapidly so allow me to point out a curious observation.  Bernie Sander's poll numbers.  

As it stands right now Bernie is the front runner for the democratic presidential nomination.  Bernie as you know is an avowed socialist, replete with a lack of any real world private sector experience, 1960's hippie expertise, upper middle class upbringing, and an entire career as a soft-hands, work-free politician. However, what should be shocking to you is that a SOCIALIST, a person who advocates banishing private property, a person who wants to have the same economic system as the Soviets, Venezuela, Cuba, and Argentina, is so warmly welcomed by democrat voters.

This shift, though shocking, was entirely predictable.  For while we were told and aware of the evils of socialism in the 1980's, nearly two new generations have since been brainwashed by the K-College government education system.  Thus why we've gone from:

President Kennedy willing to go to war with the Soviets in 1962
To Ronald Reagan breaking their backs in 1985.
To Bill Clinton wetting the panties Gen X girls with his saxophone in 1992.
To Barack Obama wetting the panties of Millennial girls (and boys) with his government checks and nationalized health care in 2008 and 2012.

And now, so complete was this brainwashing of the younger generations, Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, is the front runner of the democrat party, even beating out Hillary Clinton, no rightist herself.

The larger point is to point out and tip my hat to the democrat party and their various leftist organizations.  They have MASTERFULLY taken over the country's key institutions with the conscious and intended purpose of brainwashing America's youth to the point they are so naive and ignorant about history they have NO PROBLEMS voting for a socialist.  It is a PR stunt no different than getting two generations to vote for nazis (who actually have a lesser track record of murdering innocents than socialism). 

However, to all my friends who patted me on the head 20 years ago dismissing me as alarmist.  And to those of you who voted for Bill Clinton or even Obama in 2008 because you thought they were "cool," I just want to say "I told you so."

Socialism is no longer a four letter word.

Enjoy the decline.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I hope you got a plan in place Cappy, Once it all falls apart, as history clearly shows it will, they will come for us, once they've finished purging their own moronic base first...

Glen Filthie said...

Your focus on economics has probably not allowed you the time you need to study politics, Aaron. I was considered a nutter too when up here in Canada, I predicted the rise and dominance of queers in the political process, the gun grab and corruption of the liberals and RCMP, the rise of the SJWs and state mandated censorship, etc.

Socialists, going right on back to Lenin and Marx who invented this shit - understood that the new way to the levers of power is through the underclass. It always has been; it was the peasant farmers and minor merchants that flipped The King the bird in 1600~1700's England - and set out to America to make their fortunes free of the interference of the noble class. That same underclass handed The King his ass in 1776. The peasants responsible for that were much like yourself: enterprising, hard working and needful of self respect and self worth.

Socialism also achieved power through the underclass but in a different setting. There were no real colonies for Russian peasants to escape to and revolution had to occur in their home state.

Unfortunately for Obutthole and his democrat scum - there is no real underclass in America with which to destroy the capitalists and the filthy rich - so he pretty much has to import one. Open the floodgates to Mexico! Swarms of low skill/low IQ immigrants are now swarming across the border and finding that the roads are not paved with gold, that education and skills are as essential here as they are at home...and they are becoming hateful and resentful of those that possess these attributes.

I still think that Hillary will be your next president if she doesn't end up in jail first.

Anonymous said...

Yes Captain you are correct in the long run. As a child of the 60's and 70's I saw the power of a strong manufacturing economy (making stuff and selling it around the world). I thought the democrats would be better at achieving this goal of bringing manufacturing back. But no..at this point they just want to give free stuff to everyone so your vote is bought. I was wrong and you are correct. My apologies sir.

Mercurial Poirot said...

Its all moot as full socialism already exists for banks, all he is doing us expanding its base. Socialists and capitalists need band together to kill the cuckoo of corporatism before carrying on with their usual squabbling.

The Question said...

What's so intriguing about Bernie Sanders is how his reception by the Establishment compares to its treatment of Trump is treated. Both are claiming to be outsiders, but the difference in how they are viewed tells us who would actually change things the most - for better or worse.

Sanders is promoting economic fallacies that are guaranteed to bring disaster on the country, yet Establishment on both the Left and Right completely discount this while they shriek at Trump's candidacy. As a libertarian I support no candidate, but the level of vitriol I've seen thrown at Trump and his supporters has been too intriguing to ignore.

One can certainly highlight the flaws in Trump's stances, but they are no more ridiculous or preposterous as that of Sanders. Surely we should be just as concerned about someone advocating economic policies that were a total failure in the 20th Century. But no one seems particularly terrified of what would happen if he got elected.

One possible conclusion is that whatever Sanders is advocating isn't going to change the current system in any significant manner. If it were, we'd be seeing equal effort to destroy his candidacy as we're seeing with Trump's.

If this is true, then it would infer either that Sanders is too weak to carry out his plan or he can be manipulated, or that we already have a socialist government in place.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of wetting panties, isn't that a cornerstone of enjoying the decline? That and peakbagging. I mean, that's the beauty of the decline. So many are fooled that the American dream is still attainable that they'll leave us little guys alone to subsist somewhat happily under the radar.

msdtr said...

Great article.

Honestly, most liberals I have the misfortune to interact with these days are too mentally unbalanced (read insane), or too stupid, or both to grasp the issues at hand.

I am not talking about liberals of 20 years ago that are now reformed because they "grew up," I am talking about today's liberals and I think most of them will never grow up.

sth_txs said...

He sums it up pretty well:

IT’S 460 AD IN ROME: THIS WON’T BE FIXED

http://www.freemansperspective.com/wont-be-fixed/

Doctor_ Mayhem said...

Honestly... I think that at this point, Sanders isn't winning because he's an avowed socialist, I think he's winning for many of the same reasons Trump is winning. The attitude right now is, "Anyone but the Establishment."

This applies to both the left and the Right.

grey enlightenment said...

So many are fooled that the American dream is still attainable that they'll leave us little guys alone to subsist somewhat happily under the radar.

It's attainable for some, but for many not. It's more likely attainable if you major in STEM and or have a high IQ; much less so if you major in something shitty and are reckless with money.

JK Brown said...

First, what is the best the socialists, in their writings, can offer us? What do the most optimistic of them say? That our subsistence will be guaranteed, while we work; that some of us, the best of us, may earn a surplus above what is actually necessary for our subsistence; and that surplus, like a good child, we may "keep to spend." We may not use it to better our condition, we may not, if a fisherman, buy another boat with it, if a farmer, another field ; we may not invest it, or use it productively ; but we can spend it like the good child, on candy — on something we consume, or waste it, or throw it away.

Could not the African slave do as much? In fact, is not this whole position exactly that of the ... slave? He, too, was guaranteed his sustenance; he, too, was allowed to keep and spend the extra money he made by working overtime; but he was not allowed to better his condition, to engage in trade, to invest it, to change his lot in life. Precisely what makes a slave is that he is allowed no use of productive capital to make wealth on his own account. The only difference is that under socialism, I may not be compelled to labor (I don't even know as to that — socialists differ on the point), actually compelled, by the lash, or any other force than hunger. And the only other difference is that the ... slave was under the orders of one man, while the subject of socialism will be under the orders of a committee of ward heelers. You will say, the slave could not choose his master, but we shall elect the ward politician. So we do now. Will that help much ? Suppose the man with a grievance didn't vote for him ?

--“Socialism; a speech delivered in Faneuil hall, February 7th, 1903, by Frederic J. Stimson

Of course, Stimson also had this howler to say:

“The protection of the rights of the individual—of the free American citizen—is the very reason for being of the Democratic party. That party favors the individual—just as the Republican party favors the capitalists, and the Socialist party, as I shall try to show you, only the office holder. At least, those who are not office holders will, under Socialism, have the hardest kind of a time.”

Although, he did specify "free" American citizens, which I guess clarifies the Democratic Party's position on slavery and Jim Crow. But based on that observation, we must say the Democrat party is as Stimson admits regarding the Socialist party. The Democratic party favors the office holder.