It’s OK to Be Angry About Bernie Sanders
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was originally attributed to Will Truman in error. The author is Sanford Horn.]
New book: $28
Promotional event: $35-$95
Hypocrisy: Priceless
It’s easy to remember what a charlatan Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is – his initials are BS, after all, and although he claims to be a Socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, his lifestyle and actions prove otherwise. For years Sanders railed against the “lifestyles of the rich and famous,” – millionaires and billionaires – until he, himself became one – a multi-millionaire, who now just lambastes billionaires. Hypocrisy, jealousy, or covetousness? Either way, Sanders wears an ugly shade of green apropos of the Green Mountains of his state of Vermont.
Sanders became a millionaire hawking more than a half dozen books – the four written after his first run for president in 2016, netting him the most money, via speaking engagements, and his wife Jane isn’t exactly impoverished either. Make no mistake, I do not begrudge Sanders his wealth – that’s the essence of free market capitalism. I begrudge him his hypocrisy and that he is a grifter living off the backs of the American people, duping unsuspecting college campus indoctrinated drones into believing his lifestyle is that of a Socialist. The beauty of the free market system is that we the people have the right to work, earn, and accumulate as much as we are able – or not – and that includes Sanders, and that he egregiously takes advantage of that system making him the hypocrite’s hypocrite.
With the release of Sanders’ latest tome, It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism, he expects people to shell out $28 for the book. Or folks can receive the book by ponying up even more to attend his speaking gig on March 1 at The Anthem in Washington, DC. This event has a price tag ranging from $35 to $95, but the book is “included” for those purchasing the $55, $75, or $95 tickets to enjoy Sanders rail about the capitalist system he so fervently relishes. And if anyone wants to truly be angry, turn that anger toward Ticket Master from whom attendees will need to purchase their tickets with their added fees of upwards of 20-25 percent. Fees for what? For doing their job of selling tickets? Ticket Master has become a virtual monopoly – no sense of competition there, but that’s a whole other story.
And relish it he does – in comfort – owning three houses. Sanders, serving his third term in the Senate, owns a townhouse in Washington, DC, as well as homes in Burlington and Lake Champlain, Vermont. This coming from the man who supposedly advocates for wealth equality, supports the concept of equity, raising taxes higher, punishing the so-called wealthy, and the belief that government is the solution. On this, the anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth, the reality is, as President Reagan said in his first inaugural address on January 20, 1981, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
Demonstrating his hypocrisy yet again, is Sanders giving away his book? Making it available to read online for free? Is he offering his DC presentation for free? Putting it online, on Zoom, for all the world to experience? No? Why not? Hypocrisy – condemning capitalism while taking full advantage of it. And why? Because neither Socialism nor Communism have ever succeeded.
Was Fidel Castro a pauper? No, he was not. How about Che Guevara? Chairman Mao? Hugo Chavez? Nicolas Maduro? No; but virtually all who lived under those despots lived in abject poverty, oftentimes in countries that heretofore succeeded with free market systems. Look at Cuba before the Castro revolution. Venezuela before Chavez. The failed Greek economy under Alexis Tsipras. Compare the economies of the former West Germany with the former East Germany and current day North Korea with South Korea. Sure, one could find equity in East Germany and North Korea – everybody was equally impoverished, starving, and without rights or freedoms.
Rights and freedoms – G-d given at that – are what lead to free market systems, capitalism, and republican democracy. The things that forge growth, competition, supply and demand, as well as the mother of invention. What has Soviet Russia invented? Nothing – save for worthwhile classical music and literature composed from the fertile minds of thinkers who, more often than not, suffered their government’s wrath. What about China? Invented nothing, but they certainly have stolen the best technology American minds have produced.
For those who still, ignorantly believe Socialism and/or Communism to be winning philosophies and lifestyles, consider what life is like in Angola, China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. Russian composers Aram Khachaturian (1903-78), Sergei Prokofiev (1891-1953), and Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-75) were all denounced by the Department of Agitation and Propaganda. The existence of such a department speaks volumes – just as long as they are not spoken in Soviet Russia.
Poet, novelist, and professor Yevgeny Yevtushenko’s (1933-2017) writings earned him a travel ban from the late 1950s through the early 1960s. Another poet-novelist, Boris Pasternak (1890-1960), a Soviet dissident who wrote anti-Soviet and anti-Socialist materials, found his works censored by the government. And, novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) suffered a sentence of eight years in a Soviet gulag for criticizing Joseph Stalin in a private letter.
There are those in the United States of America who believe this nation is headed in that very direction. Others would say that time is now. Tech companies serving as agents of the government, or not, censoring the words of ordinary Americans for offering contrary opinions or even for posing questions about what the government is doing. Travel bans were executed in this country due to the Chinese gift of Covid-19. And there are Americans in prison for exercising their First Amendment right to freely assemble on January 6, 2021 – Americans who have not been afforded their civil liberties or due process. We the people must be more vigilant; must pay more attention to what the government of these United States is doing to its own citizens, all the while continuing to allow an invasion at the southern border where millions of people illegally in the United States are furnished with a plethora of freebies.
Bernie Sanders should end his facade of faux Socialism, or if he is a true believer, sell two of his houses, and use the proceeds of them along with his book proceeds to begin to help the tens of thousands of homeless American veterans deserving of so much more than they are getting. End your hypocrisy Comrade Sanders.
And Al Gore lives in a really big house! And he keeps the lights turned on after nine PM!Report
There’s a line that comes to mind from an old Doonesbury comic (one that William Safire called out in his intro to one of the Doonesbury books). Uncle Duke is asking (rhetorically in frustration) why Carter decided to replace him as ambassador to China with Leonard Woodcock (then the UAW leader); his translator says that maybe it’s because Woodcock has shown great sensitivity to the plight of the working class, and Duke responds “All labor leaders are sensitive to the working class — that’s how they avoid belonging to it!”Report
Socialism/Communism are religions pretending to be economic theories. Priests don’t quit when their God fails to answer a prayer, they just move the goal posts.Report
Also religions: college football, NFL football, the soccer kind of football, HS football in TX, capitalism, third way pols, etc, etc, etc.
At least soc/com are now sacred and deserving of the highest protections our Big C has to offer.Report
Communism is characterized in many of the same ways as religion:
– Assertions claimed as Truth
– Doubt punished as crime
– Dissent characterized as Evil
– Folklore represented as History
– Superstition held to be Science
– Piousness conflated with Morality
American Football attracts fans (short for “fanatic”) but is only called a religion for irony or humor.Report
Football fandom is an expression of tribalism. Religion can have an element of tribalism, but it’s also an expression of belief. Whatever one may think of particular religions, there’s none that’s been refuted the way communism has.Report
We still have a few religions out there trying to take over the government and then leverage that to enforce it’s world view on everyone.
The weird part is the West has a fair number of people who, although they could point to Iran or Afghanistan and correctly predict that there will be heinous outcomes, would also proclaim that true communism has never been tried.
It’s like saying that no country has actually tried putting God in charge and living up to his laws, so it will work out fine if we try it.Report
This is yet another case where nuanced discussion can’t be well served by our all or nothing, us vs. them political sphere.
Take the book sales – Noam Chomsky is no one’s idea of a capitalist, He’s written, co-written or edited close to 100 books, and no one I know on any side of the aisle criticizes him for the income they generate. Ditto the speaking fees he collects. Ben Shapiro has cranked out 20 books and rakes in enormous speaking fees. So why should we begrudge Sanders doing the same thing to spread his message?
Speaking of earned income, wealth and its relationship to political power – of you don’t want Congress people to accumulate the trappings of wealth, you can’t keep paying them $174,000 a yea and giving them high class healthcare and guaranteed pensions for life. Nor can we continue to tolerate the enormous sums of money it takes just to get elected, which either requires such significant devotion to fund raising that the member fails to do their principle duty to legislate, or it requires connections that are generally born of class status. Even AOC – who is probably the most recent “came for little” congress member currently serving – can no longer be said to be working class.
None of that, however, should stop them from advocating for change. Gore, Sander, AOC all point out the parts of the system that has massively failed many Americans. They have taken it on themselves to make careers out of trying to fix that. Given our recent discourse on the Mr. Beast thread, I’d think we’d be more welcoming of upper-class folks agitating to change the upper-class . . . .Report
I’ve mentioned before, that the “Capitalism vs Socialism” debate was settled unequivocally in favor of mixed economies, regulated markets and robust social safety nets.
Which is pretty much what Bernie is hawking, despite the labels. There isn’t really any credible alternative anymore, its all just quibbling over the precise recipe of how much regulation or how robust the social safety net.Report
Give it time. Things often become “more” possible when the current state of affairs, which seems will never change, shifts radically unexpectedly.Report
Then he should stop pointing to hard communist countries and proclaiming how that’s the way to do things.
Nicaragua, Cuba, the USSR, Venezuela… maybe others. The Communist melt down has to be pretty far along for him to stop singing their praises.Report
Considering how many people still howl for the pure free market without any social safety net, I doubt the debate is settled. Nothing is ever settled even when it should be.Report
There was a lot of fun discussion of how many houses Bernie owned in the heady days when the main undercurrent of the discussion was “No, Bernie isn’t perfect and since he’s not perfect you’re haggling and if you’re willing to haggle you should settle on Clinton” among the pragmatic vs. populist left.
My favorite response was something to the effect of “a lot of people in the Northeast have vacation homes!”
You know what? I’m sure they do.
I’m sure that in a socialist utopia, *EVERYBODY* has a vacation home!
“So can we change the zoning and build more vacation homes?”
“Oh, absolutely not.”Report
Full space luxury communism now! as the kids say.
Gonna be wild when Will looks up Engels’ finances.Report
Full Luxury Space Communism for me, explanations for how complicated the world is for thee.
Maybe you want too much? Perhaps this could be tempered by a lowering of expectations on your part.Report
This coming from the man who supposedly advocates for wealth equality, supports the concept of equity, raising taxes higher, punishing the so-called wealthy, and the belief that government is the solution.
He certainly does support higher taxes on the better-off. Of which he is clearly one — is there anyone with a room-temperature IQ who doesn’t know this? — and who will himself have to pay the higher taxes he hopes to get Congress to impose. Unless he tucks in some very special-interest loophole that nobody thinks he’s tucking in.Report
You know, if I’ve been successful in life, does that mean any argument that I make about how I, and people in my situation, should be taxed more is invalid? I mean, in court, that would be an admission against interest, and considered particularly credible.
If you’ve succeeded in the system that exists, even though you think it should be changed, you’re not a hypocrite, in my book. You’re just smart.Report
Every so often, when some politicians advocate more money for public education, someone else calls them hypocrites because they spend their own money to send their kids to private schools. (Which nobody, especially their critics, wants to get rid of.) The alleged hypocrites uncomplainingly pay the current taxes to support a public school system they do not use and would have to pay any additional taxes their funding proposals would require. Whatever else this may be, it is not hypocrisy.Report
“Should we have school choice? Funds follow the student?”
“ABSOLUTELY NOT!”Report
That goes under “whatever else this may be,” a policy difference, not “hypocrisy.”Report
I know Chip already checked this box but it’s so incredibly easy to think mixed economies are the best. Not that anyone has to agree but taking the best from capitalism and socialism to make an even better third thing is right there. It’s never been either or. In fact 99.99999% of discussion about capitalism or socialism in the grand sense is garbage. To vague and purely philosophical.Report
NOTE: This was originally attributed to me, but it is from Sanford Horn. I put it into the system but forgot to change the name. My apologies to Mr Horn and to any confusion this may have caused.Report
That explains a great deal.Report
LOL. This didn’t sound like you.Report
I almost posted an old thing about hypocrisy and then was like, no, this can’t be Will.Report
I was wondering. HehehReport
I think one of the unfortunate lingering consequences of the Cold War is that it has poisoned Americans’ minds against even a basic understanding of socialism and Marxism. I don’t just mean random rubes, but smart intellectuals mostly seem to have visceral anti-socialist reactions. It was just last year that one of the former writers here basically accused me on Twitter of advocating genocide, for advocating democratic control of the work place. Hell, it’s not even just people who are anti-socialist. I’ve spent a great deal of time in the last 7 years among people new to socialism, and the vast majority of them have no idea what socialism is, and many of them, despite calling themselves socialists, are actively hostile to socialism generally (I remember a big debate, in person, among members of a large socialist group here, about whether it was OK to use a red star in the group’s official logo).
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to elide the bad things done in the name of socialism. I have on my desk pretty much at all times (in fact, I tweeted about it this morning), a copy of Kolyma Stories, which is a much better look at the horrors of the prison camps than anything Solzhenitsyn ever wrote. It might surprise a lot of Americans to learn that much of what’s called “Western Marxism” (think the Frankfurt School, Althusser, Postone, etc., etc.) was meant as a response to, and attempt to understand, what went wrong with in Soviet communism, in a way, and with a depth that American scholars and critics (to say nothing of regular ol’ people like us) never could, because it was done with a deep understanding of Marxism, and a deep sadness (and horror, and anger) at the failure of it in the Soviet Union.Report
For what it’s worth, I’m not anti-Socialism.
I’m anti-stuff-that-we’ll-say-wasn’t-really-socialism-after-the-fact.
I don’t really trust the ability of Socialists to be able to tell the difference between Socialism and stuff-that-we’ll-say-wasn’t-really-socialism-after-the-fact.
I mean, look at how many times Socialists have gotten that one wrong since the 1850s.Report
The “after the fact” part is where it becomes clear that even a casual perusal of the socialist literature would do you some good.
I think a good reading group would do Ten Days that Shook the World, then either Forever Flowing or Kolyma Stories, then Yesterday’s Tomorrow: On the Loneliness of Communist Specters and the Reconstruction of the Future. This would give us three perspectives on the Soviet Union and how it went wrong: First, a passionate look at the Revolution written in the heat of the moment, full of hope and expectation; then, from one of the two true believers, crashing down into the brutally repressive reality of Stalinism; and finally, far-removed reflections on what was, what could have been, what what someday still could be.
Note that none of these are “theory.” One is a journalist reporting on the Revolution, one is a series of short stories and reflections, one is a novel, and one is an essay on the failure of the Revolution, published last year, in an effort to understand what the past can tell us about the possibilities of the future. They’re all accessible to pretty much anyone, regardless of their background and knowledge of 20th century history and Marxism generally. Highly recommend each.Report
I know that they are good at this *AFTER* the fact. They can dissect cadavers with the best of them.
I don’t need yet another autopsy report even if the coroner is the best one yet.Report
What I’m pointing out is that you’ll find people recognizing the problems in the moment, if you read those books.
Hell, you could read Trotsky and see that. This isn’t something people didn’t pretty much immediately realize had some problems, and once Stalin took over, anyone who wasn’t aware became so.Report
Have we gotten good at dodging icepicks?Report
Yeah, the icepick was specifically because he talked about how things had gone astray during the fact, not after. If he’d done it as a post-mortem, no one would have come after him.
Same with Luxemburg, same with Emma Goldman, same with Grossman, same with Shalamov, same with the Frankfurt School and Camus and Merleau-Ponty and so on.
The 1910s and 20s was filled with letters and articles in leftist journals and essays and so on, all about these things. Americans are unaware of this, because Americans don’t learn a history that allows for the existence of a robust debate among the Russian/Soviet and European left.
Very few of them will tell you that it wasn’t “communism,” though they might tell you where it stopped being what even the Bolsheviks themselves thought communism should be at one point (e.g., “all power to the Soviets” died really fast, as did the critique of the Czar’s policing tactics).Report
One of the yawning gaps in my education and knowledge is my meager grasp of the socialist and communist tradition. What little I know about it doesn’t appeal to me, and even if it did I see no prospect of it getting any traction here. (For precisely that reason, however, I don’t see it as a threat.) Sadly, lots of people who know as little as I do feel entitled to bloviate on it.Report
I certainly wish more people knew a lot about it, but I do find it fascinating that one of the largest, richest, and most diverse (both intellectually and in the sense that there is writing from everywhere, by pretty much every race and ethnicity and gender and so forth) intellectual traditions in the world currently, and for the last 200 years, is pretty much completely alien to the vast majority of Americans. Hell, there are people on right here on this blog who will hit the ignore button if you even mention it.Report
What would make this conversation more meaningful is a reckoning, a postmortem on the corpse of Western style capitalism in the formerly Communist nations since 1990.
How did an embrace of markets change these societies?
In what ways did it succeed?
Why did it fail in its larger goal?
For those playing along at home, recall that the conventional wisdom circa 1990 was that a people accustomed to freely choosing a soda pop would naturally insist upon the right to choose a leader.
Yet, something went awry somewhere.Report
For sure. There’s a whole lot of this, too. That would be a good reading group topic as well.Report
One idea is that changing the ideology of the gov doesn’t change the system. Russia traded one bunch of murdering old fashioned bastards for another bunch of murdering bastards but with a drive for industry and modernization. If Czar Nick had a healthy child and a fetish for factories Russia would have stayed Russia for at least a couple more decades. The form of russian society: rich oligarchs ruling everything, dispensing just enough to the peasants or killing them to stay in power is resistant to change.
The brand name of Capitalism or Socialism doesn’t really tell you a ton about the product your gonna get.Report
This was my theory when I was a Republican, that changing economic systems didn’t have a determining factor on anything other than efficiency.
If you don’t have a liberal society no economic system will change that.
See all the repressive nations that embraced Communism, and the repressive nations that embraced capitalism.
But if you do have a liberal society, no economic system will change that either. See all the free nations that mix and match and freely socialize, or privatize the factors of production.Report
Efficiency can determine whether or not people starve.Report
Yes but a big but. Authoritarian systems can be efficient for periods of time. Helps of course to not care who gets crushed. Tankies are correct that Stalin got the USSR industrialized faster then anybody else could have. A few million people died though which tankies don’t care about.
So efficiency is good but ohh boy there are costs.Report
This is a breathtaking assumption considering the rest of the world was also undergoing industrialization and the USSR consistently lied about it’s economic statistics.
If you can’t feed your people consistently because your system’s farm output is that inefficient, then the way to bet is the rest of your system wasn’t very efficient either.
That’s before we factor in the whole “killing tens of millions of your own people” thing.Report
We’ve run experiments with the same cultural groups. North/South Korea. East/West Germany.
For that matter Poland’s (etc) experiences pre and post communism should be considered instructive.Report
Not to be picky but those arent’ experiments. Like a gazillion external variables and no controls. Germany had been a rich industrialized country since it’s been a country. It’s stayed that way except for when it wasn’t bombed to rubble and in East G. It took a lot to suppress EG but they did. Fwiw Soviet era East G had the reputation of being the best non Soviet army in the bloc.
To ponder; Not having any Jews left must have effected the society and rebuilding in central Europe. Certainly so in Poland and both Germany’s. Exactly how?Report
An imperfect experiment run by nature is still an experiment, in these we had two groups of people culturally identical to each other each given different governments with different systems.
Those under the communist systems fared about as well as communist system normally fare. Those under the West’s system were massively richer and better off in many other ways.
Variables which affect the entire wealth of a country are probably not “gazillions”. Different types of cat foods are unlikely to affect on the outcome.
If we’re searching for forces big enough to matter, the obvious one was communism. It couldn’t have been culture since both sets had the same.
It’s also awkward to argue “there were unique factors causing this failure” for each of the 40 or so countries that have actually tried this system.Report
Russia is working hard at becoming a 3rd world failed state.
China has been so stressed with the contradictions between a free people and keeping the people in their place that they have gone full cult of personality with their current leader. They also suffer from a ton of other problems that will probably make the wheels come off within the next few decades.
Both countries are paying a very high price for keeping their people down.Report
If we’re going to measure from 1990, we have the problem that actual Capitalism went out of style in the 1930s or so.Report
Perhaps one of the problems is that the people most likely to pick up the icepick are the ones most likely to make it to the top.
Looking around the current batch, I’m not sure that we’ve solved that problem yet.Report
The Ice Axe can be readily seen at The Spy Museum in Washington DC!!!
Easy walk from there for lunch on the green then down to all the big monuments.Report
That was a very fun day.Report
The problem with limiting the discussion of “why communism failed” to Russia/USSR, is we also have… China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mongolia, Yemen, Czech Republic, Germany (East), Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Rep. of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia, Angola, Benin, Dem Rep. of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea and Mozambique.
Hmm… my source missed a few. The “new types” of socialism in Venezuela & Nicaragua. Probably others.Report
That communism has consistently failed is clear enough. Has socialism failed? That depends on the definition. If we adopt a dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster: 1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; 2a. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property.), you can make a strong case that socialism has failed, as well. If you adopt the Republican definition of socialism (Anything proposed by any Democrat, ever.), the case breaks down at once.Report
Which is what we leftists here have been saying for years . . .Report
This is why I keep advocating we use the verb “socialize” and point out that socialization of some of the factors of production has had a run of unparalleled success for nearly two hundred years all around the world.Report
If you’re rich and advocate for anything to the left of Paul Ryan, you’re a hypocrite.
If you’re poor and advocate anything to the left of Paul Ryan, you’re a lazy, greedy, jealous moocher who wants to live high on the hog off other people’s success.Report