Sanders was coy about the details of a socialist economy. He was downright disdainful of the notion that a speech on socialism and authoritarianism should grapple with the long history of socialist movements that ended in dictatorship. Me .
To say that Sanders's speech, concluding we must "take up the unfinished business of the New Deal," needs to answer for 20C "leftist autocrats" is arguing the New Deal is implicated with those autocrats (i.e. liberal fascism), a bad history and argument.
Over at , has a thoughtful critique about Sanders ignoring the threat of authoritarianism from the left
Sanders "was downright disdainful of the notion that a speech on socialism and authoritarianism should seriously grapple with the long history of socialist movements that have ended in dictatorship," argues
Warren is the heir of some of the most successful left-wing movements of the 20th century.. . .Germany’s Willy Brandt, Britain’s Clement Attlee, and America’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt were clear about the benefits of markets and forthright about dangers
Sanders "was downright disdainful of the notion that a speech on socialism and authoritarianism should seriously grapple with the long history of socialist movements that have ended in dictatorship," argues
A really insightful take on Bernie Sanders' "what is socialism?" speech.
Thank god exists to warn us of leftist indoctrination in universities and a Maoist takeover of US state and national government.
"What mattered was not whether a party or movement called itself socialist, but whether it recognized the danger of autocracy, and carefully formulated limiting principles that would stop it from going down the same path as the Soviet Union"
"Given my background, I am baffled both by the fear and the fascination which the socialist label now evokes in the United States." --