Jump to content
SpyCar

***Bombshell Report***Bernie Sanders in the 1970s urged nationalization of most major industries (CNN)

Recommended Posts

Supporters of BS on this forum, like TrollingRock always lie about the ideology of their cult leader. They say show us where he's said he wants to nationalize major industries. In 2016 the media gave the cranky old socialist a free-pass, and we got Donald Trump.

 

This time CNN has done an in-depth analysis of the ideological career of BS and the far-left part he started (Liberty Union party).

 

CNN's findings:

 

Bernie Sanders advocated for the nationalization of most major industries, including energy companies, factories, and banks, when he was a leading member of a self-described "radical political party" in the 1970s, a CNN KFile review of his record reveals.

<snip>

During this time, Sanders and Liberty Union argued for nationalization of the energy industry, public ownership of banks, telephone, electric, and drug companies and of the major means of production such as factories and capital, as well as other proposals such as a 100% income tax on the highest income earners in America.

<snip>

"I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries," Sanders said in one interview with the Burlington Free Press in 1976.

 

As if any thinking-people had their doubts about what for of ideology drives Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.).

 

Bill

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

Democratic socialist =socialist. 

 

Exactly. 

 

He tries very hard to obfuscate his true ideology, but who is he kidding?

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

Exactly. 

 

He tries very hard to obfuscate his true ideology, but who is he kidding?

 

Bill

Not a corporate shill like you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collectivism.

 

 

 

 

kj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF he had got it done.

Gas would still be .35cents per gallon.

Instead we have corporations hoarding $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Trillions of profits offshore, Paying no taxes.

 

They Con.tinue to rape our natural resources for their private profits.

 

Which doesn't help our country.

 

Course ole Bill is to fkin Stupid to understand

but

Keep digging Dumbfk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders is a collectivist. The free college and free healthcare issues are simply poll-tested proposals that are "stalking horse" issues that conceal his real goal. Which is to nationalise the economy and turn the US into a Socialist state.

 

Time to go away, Bernie!

 

Bill

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SpyCar said:

Supporters of BS on this forum, like TrollingRock always lie about the ideology of their cult leader. They say show us where he's said he wants to nationalize major industries. In 2016 the media gave the cranky old socialist a free-pass, and we got Donald Trump.

 

This time CNN has done an in-depth analysis of the ideological career of BS and the far-left part he started (Liberty Union party).

 

CNN's findings:

 

Bernie Sanders advocated for the nationalization of most major industries, including energy companies, factories, and banks, when he was a leading member of a self-described "radical political party" in the 1970s, a CNN KFile review of his record reveals.

<snip>

During this time, Sanders and Liberty Union argued for nationalization of the energy industry, public ownership of banks, telephone, electric, and drug companies and of the major means of production such as factories and capital, as well as other proposals such as a 100% income tax on the highest income earners in America.

<snip>

"I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries," Sanders said in one interview with the Burlington Free Press in 1976.

 

As if any thinking-people had their doubts about what for of ideology drives Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.).

 

Bill

 

EDUCATION; The Mainstreaming of Marxism in U.S. Colleges

About the Archive

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems. Please send reports of such problems to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

October 25, 1989, Page 00007The New York Times Archives

As Karl Marx's ideological heirs in Communist nations struggle to transform his political legacy, his intellectual heirs on American campuses have virtually completed their own transformation from brash, beleaguered outsiders to assimilated academic insiders.

It could be considered a success story for the students of class struggle, who were once regarded as subversives. But some scholars say that as Marxists have adapted, their ties to the 19th-century German philosopher have fragmented into a loosely knit collection of theories with little in common. And in the past decade, while the prosperity of Western economies has made Marxism irrelevant to many, new rival radical theories have arisen to challenge the Marxists themselves.

''A Marxist revolutionary is hard to find,'' said Loren Graham, a historian at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ''Marx has become relativized. He's no longer a battle cry -just a great figure in economics and history, along with a number of other great figures.'' An Uneasy Relationship

Even though today's Marxists may be establishmentarian, they are still not at ease.

''For a long time Marxists were virtually excluded,'' said Eugene D. Genovese, whose growing array of prestigious academic titles - Sunderland Fellow at the University of Michigan Law School, Distinguished Professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Rochester - bear witness to the mainstreaming of Marxists since the blacklists in the 1950's.

''Then for a long time it was fashionable to be a Marxist,'' he continued. ''Now it's getting unfashionable again, and many are retreating. There are a lot of people who don't want to call themselves Marxist or anything else.''

Continue reading the main story
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Indeed, non-Marxist scholars are asking whether Marxism is assimilating itself out of existence.

''It's been diluted to the point where it's a very thin gruel,'' said the Princeton historian Lawrence Stone. ''Some of my young colleagues call themselves neo-Marxists. I can't see much difference between their views and mine, and I call myself a liberal Democrat.'' Upheaval in Eastern Bloc

Recent interviews with a dozen historians, sociologists, literary critics, economists and legal scholars show that the upheaval in Poland, Hungary and other Eastern bloc nations has lent a new sense of excitement to discussions of class analysis and debates about whether capitalism will give way to socialism or whether socialism will rediscover capitalism.

But several scholars say the excitement has not brought increased enrollment in courses that focus on Marxist analysis, although it has made Soviet and Eastern European studies popular. Where Marxism is thriving, these scholars say, is less in social science courses, where there is a possibility of practical application, than in the abstract world of literary criticism.

It is also in this field that new radicals - from feminists who say class analysis leaves women out, to deconstructionists who say historical truth does not exist - have posed the sharpest challenge to those who back Marx's theories of class struggle.

''Marxism and feminism, Marxism and deconstruction, Marxism and race - this is where the exciting debates are,'' said Jonathan M. Wiener, a professor of history at the University of California at Irvine. Omissions in History

In response to feminists' claims that all the categories of Marxism are organized around male concerns and experience, Professor Wiener said, ''To understand women's history you need a completely different set of analytic categories.'' A new group of Marxist feminist historians is now trying to reconcile the differences, he added.

But deconstructionists deny that one can understand any experience of the past because the evidence for any conclusion comes from people's observations, most of which appear in a text. Deconstructionists maintain that texts are only stories told by people who leave out what they deem unimportant, and that such omissions keep written history from being reliable evidence about reality.

 

This philosophy is ''very upsetting to people who think there is one historical truth and there is one way to discover it,'' Mr. Wiener said, adding, ''Marxism believes there is a real world and it's really possible to understand it.''

Some scholars try to incorporate the cacophonous pluralism of radical theories into their work.

Asserting that ''relieving anxiety is not the object of academic work,'' Gayatri Spivak, a literary critic who is the Andrew W. Mellon Professor of English at the University of Pittsburgh, uses elements of deconstructionist theory, Marxist theory and feminist theory in her work.

''The three are not married in my use of them,'' she said. ''They are always bringing each other to crisis.'' A Matter for Analysis

Whatever anxiety may spring from the theoretical wars, Marxist scholars greet the apparently robust vitality of capitalism with equanimity. For Mr. Wiener, this is a matter for analysis, not anxiety.

''Marxism needs to account for the continuing vitality of capitalism as capitalism embraces more and more of the world,'' he said. ''That doesn't mean there aren't capitalists and there aren't workers and this class relation doesn't provide a key to what's going on. We need to look more at how the ideology of consumerism has overpowered class consciousness.''

Far from producing anxiety, the transformation of the Communist landscape delights American socialists, who said decades ago that the Stalinist system was a perversion of Marxism, and now join conservatives in applauding the economic and political changes taking place in Poland, Hungary and the Soviet Union.

''These things show that a fundamentally Marxist mind is capable of creativity and change,'' said Mark Mancall, a history professor at Stanford University. The Salvation of Socialism

John Roemer, an economics professor at the University of California at Davis, said: ''I'm very happy with what's happening in these countries. I think it's going to save socialism, rather than kill it.''

And diversity is now the signature of once-monolithic Marxism. Professor Spivak calls herself a Marxist feminist, Professor Roemer designs Marxist market-driven economies, and Erik Olin Wright, a sociology professor at the University of Wisconsin, calls himself an analytic Marxist, seeking to break Marx's grand theories down into their components.

Like many contemporary Marxists, Professor Wright is a bit uncomfortable with his establishment credentials.

''It makes me nervous,'' he said. ''I feel it shouldn't have been as easy for me in a big university as it has been. I don't see myself as having compromised my beliefs, but I'm not so naive as to believe that I'm more immune from the pressures of an institution than anyone else.''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

I'm anasshole.

Can someone please help me not to be one ?

 

I'm afraid not.

No one can fix stupid.

 

But a lobotomy certainly would make your life less painful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sander is way too dumb to understand post-modern literary criticism.

 

Bill 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JinnMartini said:

 

I'm afraid not.

No one can fix stupid.

 

But a lobotomy certainly would make your life less painful.

 

I'm pretty sure they already tried that.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SpyCar said:

Bernie Sander is way too dumb to understand post-modern literary criticism.

 

Bill 

 

Huh? You don't seem like the college type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hex2 said:

IF he had got it done.

Gas would still be .35cents per gallon.

Instead we have corporations hoarding $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Trillions of profits offshore, Paying no taxes.

 

They Con.tinue to rape our natural resources for their private profits.

 

Which doesn't help our country.

 

Course ole Bill is to fkin Stupid to understand

but

Keep digging Dumbfk

 

You mean like Venezuela? 35 cent gas means dick if you have to eat your pets and wipe your ass with banana leaves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

Sanders is a collectivist. The free college and free healthcare issues are simply poll-tested proposals that are "stalking horse" issues that conceal his real goal. Which is to nationalise the economy and turn the US into a Socialist state.

 

Time to go away, Bernie!

 

Bill

 

 

It's time for ypu to get over Bernie. Past time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, NeoConvict said:

Democratic socialist =socialist. 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zaro said:

It's time for ypu to get over Bernie. Past time

 

Spycar is a Republican. Obvious to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

No one cares what Bernie said 40-50 years ago.  You're an idiot.

 

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1w92scsn_FfTz8A5YT40

No one cares what Sanders said 40-50 years ago..?

 

Everyone should

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zaro said:

It's time for ypu to get over Bernie. Past time

 

I'd like that to be true, but he's up to no good once again.

 

He is a menace to liberal democracy and needs to be stopped. Not that there is much doubt about that.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, leftwinger said:

 

Spycar is a Republican. Obvious to me.

Yeah. But he got a bombshell. From 1970

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

 

Spycar is a Republican. Obvious to me.

No. He like many other life long Democrats has some concerns in the direction of the party. Keep going socialist and Democrats will not be viable in National elections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×