Government Doesn’t Want to Nationalize, They Want to Decommidify


Bernie Sanders

There is good news and bad news. The democrat socialists don’t want to take over. That’s the good news. The bad news is they want to totally control everything.

Josh Barro authored a NY Times article promoting the claims by Sociology Professor Lane Kenworthy and, in the space of 18 paragraphs, he took Socialist/Communist Bernie Sanders and brought him from Socialist to Democratic Socialist to Democratic Socialist Capitalist to  “very liberal.” The Times is trying for a makeover.

“I think Bernie Sanders’ use of the word ‘socialism’ is causing much more confusion than it is adding value,” said Lane Kenworthy, a professor of sociology at the University of California at San Diego. Mr. Kenworthy, who recently wrote a book called “Social Democratic America” and thinks about these sorts of things for a living, offered a suggestion: “He is, if you want to put it this way, a democratic socialist capitalist.”

First of all, you can’t be a socialist and a free market capitalist at the same time unless you are defining capitalism as crony socialism.

Bernie is a communist who pretends to be a socialist. An admirer of Cuba and Soviet Russia, he’s morphed into using the more euphemistic labels as he has risen in his political career but you can’t put lipstick on a pig.

During his debate, he came up with programs that would cost about $18 trillion dollars. The estimate includes 15 trillion dollars for healthcare, 1 trillion for Social Security, another trillion for infrastructure, another trillion for free college, 300 billion for free family leave, 29 billion for private pensions, and on and on. We know this is only the beginning.


He proposed taking the money for family leave out of everyone’s paycheck. He’s called for 90% tax rates and he’s said, “Why not $500 an hour minimum wage?, in a mostly serious vein.

Bernie doesn’t want to nationalize anything, Professor Kenworthy claims, but he will have the government completely control the pillars of society with heavy regulations and high taxes.

Bernie wants mixed economy with capitalism under the heavy hand of high taxes and heavy regulation, and the professor concludes he’s a Democrat, only more so.

“It’s not socialism, it’s social democracy, which is a big difference,” said Mike Konczal, an economic policy expert at the left-wing Roosevelt Institute. Social democracy, Mr. Konczal noted, “implies a very active role for capitalism in the framework,” the article continues.

Mr. Konczal laid out four hallmarks. You might be a social democrat if you support: a mixed economy, that is, a combination of private enterprise and government spending; social insurance programs that support the old and the poor; a Keynesian economic policy of government borrowing and spending to offset economic recessions; and democratic participation in government and the workplace.

Never once during the debate did any of the socialist democrats talk about how they would pay for all of this because they know they have to tax everyone a lot, those of us who still pay taxes that is. The rich can’t possibly pay for all this and with half the country not paying taxes, it will fall on every hard working American trying to get ahead.

The left wants to plunder the wealth, punish those who are successful and reward those they feel are deserving who will find it more advantageous to not work at all.

America has many socialist programs already and we also have more than 18 trillion in debt and China, which owns $1.4 trillion US debt, is divesting itself of hundreds of billions of it while showing a lack of interest in buying more. Their buying of our debt has kept a lid on our costs. We already borrow 40 cents on every dollar and these socialist democrats are bragging about wanting much more of it.

No one cares about what is going on with China because so far Americans are picking up some of the slack. How long do people think that can go on?

Forbes reported that there has been “a raft of disappointing indicators, from retail sales to manufacturing, suggests consumers are scaling back just as overseas demand weakens. And wages are stagnating for many Americans. Since the recession ended, average hourly earnings have increased less than in any expansion since the 1960s. Without higher wages to spur spending, inflation has remained stubbornly low.”

The left likes to say Bernie and Hillary, who is a more low-key version of Bernie, only want to raise taxes on the wealthy but Bernie is admitting he wants to tax everyone more – just a little bit for this and a little bit for that and pretty soon a little bit is a lotta bit.

“It’s not socialism, it’s social democracy, which is a big difference,” said Mike Konczal, a so-called economic policy expert at the far-left Roosevelt Institute. Social democracy, Mr. Konczal noted, “implies a very active role for capitalism in the framework.”

Would that be a role like China has? That is the kind of capitalism China has – one ruled by the party bosses and elite. What do people think heavy regulation is about? It’s about complete control. That’s what Dodd-Frank is intended to do – control the banks – which it does only it’s made them bigger and more in danger of failing.

Konczal said the only difference between Clinton and Sanders is one of degree. We know! He also likes the idea of decommidification, i. e.,  some goods and services are so important they should be removed from the market economy and given to the Big Enormous Government to control. So they don’t want to nationalize everything, just decommidify important stuff like the pillars of society – health, energy, education, housing et al.

That’s another way of saying nationalization but it’s more euphemistic. No matter how you slice it, it’s not local control, it’s not capitalism, and it will take away peoples’ rights. The elite will choose what is a civil right and it will soon look like the UN gaggles’ socialist Declaration of Human Rights.

Universal healthcare is something both Clinton and Sanders want but Hillary is coy about it and Sanders isn’t. The only thing Sanders can’t do is explain how it could possibly be paid for. His own socialist state of Vermont had to dump it. Nothing is free, it’s just a matter of whether the people want control over where their money goes or do they want the government to decide.

The author of the Times article seems to bemoan the fact that private doctors and hospitals are still not fully in the socialist equation and make a profit – that has to change!

Oprah is the poster child for the socialist democrats. These phony socialists like Oprah Winfrey who want more and more government control love to make money for themselves. She is on another diet so she bought 10% of Weight Watchers and the stock rose making her $45 million richer in ONE DAY! Talk about income inequality – look to these so-called liberals.

The false conclusion at the end of the article: When Mr. Kenworthy, the California professor, proposed the “democratic socialist capitalist” label to me, I responded by asking how that’s different from being a very liberal Democrat.

“I don’t think there is a difference,” he said. As such, I hope Mr. Sanders is not too offended if I simply describe him as “very liberal.”

So now the socialists who filled the debate stage last Tuesday are just “very liberal”? What world do these people live in? What is liberal about stealing peoples’ money and giving it out to special interests via an inefficient and corrupt government apparatus. These people are the Mafia without the credit they deserve? They are the biggest, most successful mob in the country.


Remember when then-Senator Barack Obama referenced the 2008 GOP candidate and said, “You can’t put lipstick on a pig?”

“That’s not change,” he said. “That’s just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”

Maybe we need to revive that expression and apply it to the left as they try to redefine socialism and communism in this country.

Source: NY Times Josh Barro

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 years ago

Without capitalism, socialism could not exist. Who would pay for it?