Garry Kasparov nails it in his article---dispels any notion that even a socialistic-esque democracy can only implode on itself in time.

Great article by an intelligent man.

I agree...remember that the first term they co-opted was "liberal", which used to mean, and only mean, pro-free-market/free trade in Economics.So now we have to qualify it with "classical" liberal.

"Americans—especially Sanders supporters—are angry about the present and fearful about the future."
It's odd that in 2008 it seemed angry-and-fearful Democrats liked Clinton, while hope-and-change Democrats (like me) went for Obama. Oddly, we hope-and-change Democrats now support Clinton.

Revolution is often (always?) nasty/ugly business. Cambodia is an interesting example where "intellectual" was defined as anyone with more than an 8th grade education.
In almost every decade of the 20th century there is an example of genocide at some significant level as cultures clashed to fight over who (which group) would be the 'legitimate' power -- the National Socialists killed 16+ million with industrial organization; the Soviet Communists/Socialists killed upwards of 40 million. The Rwandans killed relative paltry sums in the 10's of thousands (but they did it eye-to-eye with machete's
Yeah, nasty business. Ironic that the collapse of the Soviet empire many have been the least bloody/most controlled -- maybe, I don't know enough about that.

Well, Ayn Rand also lived through Socialism, and
denounced it. But she was no fan of anti-trust,
either.

I have reread this article a couple of times now, and am impressed by it. It succinctly states many of the elements of the modern world that we have discussed in the Gulch.

Jan

A terrific movie which points out the differences vividly is "Moscow On The Hudson."
There is a scene in a grocery store, that says it all in just a few minutes.

The establishment of an "intellectual" aristocracy is dangerous, especially for the new aristocrats. Remember the French revolution cry "To the lanterns" where every lamppost had an aristocrat hanging from it. Nasty business.

Well said. My only "issue" would be crediting them with being "intellectuals." The most powerful socialist leaders (Stalin, Hitler for e.g.) were ruthless and probably psychopaths. They may have been bright (above average IQ's, but not necessarily "intelligent." (having the ability to carry conflicting ideas in their minds simultaneously w/out being overwhelmed). I realize you noted they are "self proclaimed" intellectuals. I return to the Dunning-Kruger effect where less than bright people misconceive of themselves as bright and therefore misjudge others too. Socialism never has a tenable solution to any real world problem -- at least not in the long term.

I have always been a fan of Ayn Rands book "We the Living". To learn the truth about Communism and Socialism, read the book that was written by some one that lived it.

In the '60's, Bernie spent a few months in a communist kibbutz in Israel. That's when he realized that it's better to be more equal than equal. And ever since, he's been selling this sh*t to others, while trying to float on top of it.

It takes a person like Kasparov to open the eyes of those who have been hypnotized by the promises of Socialism. It is all very simple. Just ask Mr. K. the following. Was the playing field level? Yes. Were your needs provided for? No. Was your standard of living any better? No. Were you happier? No.

There were those whose lives were better. They worked in the Kremlin and for the Kremlin. For everyone else, life sucked. But the big difference between the USSR and the USA was that the Russian prople never knew anything better. As the saying goes, they'd been down so long it looked like up to them. We in the USA know what better is. Most of us live it or have the opportunity to get it.

Listen up you undereducated, impressionable, ignorant multitudes. A vote for Sanders is a vote for poverty and privation. Unless you work for the Kremlin.

Sanders needs a money tree of his own to pay for all these programs. A money tree that no one else has to feed other than the supporters of socialism.

BUT, those people dont grow money trees. They want to take the money tree I grew in my back yard and use it for their programs.

Absolutely. Government simply gets in the way. Even when they fund technology, its usually either the wrong technology, or their funding was way too much for what we got.

Every time someone misuses the term 'Progressive' we must correct them. Socialists of any flavor do not support (human) progress. They support a regression back tothe times of princes, kings tribal leaders.

Checkmate . Liberty ,freedom , and individualism over collectivism ,Socialism and govt control!

Great find, rob.
Very inspiring article.

I particularly liked: "The USSR collapsed because it couldn’t compete over time, despite its massive resources and devout ideology. The Soviets put a man in space before America but couldn’t keep up the pace against an innovating, free-market competitor. My Facebook post went around the world on technology created in America. The networks, the satellites, the software, nearly every ingredient in every mobile device and desktop computer, was invented in the USA. It is not a coincidence that the most capitalist country in the world created all these things. Innovation requires freedom of thought, freedom of capital, and people who believe in changing the world."