Tim Allen Reminds America What Socialism Really Is
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has endured quite a beating over the years as a self-proclaimed socialist. In fact, for most of his political career, his far-left leaning views have pretty much labeled him as a radical, nearly making him the laughing stock of the entire Democratic Party. However, as he has grown a little wiser, Sanders as learned to do some labeling of his own.
So instead of calling what himself a socialist, as he used to, he now says he is a democratic socialist, which sounds a bit more acceptable to the masses of this country. And his popularity has risen considerably, as is evident by the fact that he is the current frontrunner of his party in the race for the 2020 White House.
However, getting that position of frontrunner gives everyone else plenty of reason to use him as their primary target, at least until he falls a bit in the polls.
And attack him, they most certainly have. Nothing was more evident during Tuesday night’s latest debate than the desire to knock old Bernie down a few notches. It seemed that with every new topic or issue discussed, it somehow all got turned around on Bernie, as is only fair.
But it seems that some of the worst criticism of the night didn’t take place on that South Carolinian stage. Instead, it came from critics elsewhere.
Among the best was what actor Tim Allen posted on his Twitter account near the beginning of the second part of the debate. It wasn’t an attack on Sander’s character, his views, or even his proposed policies. In fact, not even his name is mentioned.
No, all Allen needed was a short definition of socialism from a very well-known source.
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
2 : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
— Tim Allen (@ofctimallen) February 26, 2020
Allen wrote, “Socialism,” and then proceeded to include what Merriam-Webster defined that word to be. The first definition given said, “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
And the second defined socialism as “a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.”
I am positive I couldn’t have given Sanders a more damning criticism if I tried.
And the public agreed. As of very early Wednesday morning, the tweet had been liked over 26,000 times and had been more than 8,000 retweets.
Naturally, many of the conversations started about it were from Sanders’ very outspoken Bernie Bros, who stated the need for the definition of “democratic socialism” and “social democracy” as those are the terms Bernie likes to label himself as currently.
However, even when those definitions are given, which happen to be very different, by the way, it is made all the more evident that Bernie is, in fact, a socialist at heart, and not whatever else he wants to call it.
Let’s start with “social democracy.” This term is mostly used to talk about any capitalistic system of government, such as many nations in Northern Europe, where progressive social welfare programs are heavily relied upon.
“Democratic socialism,” on the other hand, describes a democratic government whose economy is socially owned and regulated. Meaning not only the society is government-controlled as with social democracy, but so is industry.
And as Allen so rightly wrote, “socialism” is the existence of no private property, whether it’s politically, economically, industrially, or anything else.
Each one is a slight escalation from the previous one, with the government gaining more and more control.
So let’s see which one fits Bernie Sanders proposed views the best.
Well, he wants basically free everything for everyone, so that certainly gives him the social aspect.
He also wants to take down big corporations, everything from communications to banking and healthcare, and give their power and money to the government. So it’s out with social democracy and in with democratic socialism.
And then there is his desire to give governmental housing, schooling, and public transportation while doing away with cars, trucks, and airplanes. By my count, there isn’t much left that could be considered private property if all this is done.
Therefore, by definition, he is a socialist, fair and square.
Of course, we can’t forget about all the times he has defended violent socialist leaders like Fidel Castro, or praised the acts of the Soviet Union, or even claimed that communist China was doing a lot of good things.
And what category do you think that puts him in?