Bernie Sanders in the 1970s urged nationalization of most major industries

[RandySF]

(CNN) — 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.

Sanders' past views shed light on a formative period of his political career that could become relevant as he advances in the 2020 Democratic primary.

Many of the positions he held at the time are more extreme compared to the more tempered democratic socialism the Vermont senator espouses today and could provide fodder for moderate Democrats and Republicans looking to cast the Democratic presidential candidate and his beliefs as a fringe form of socialism that would be harmful to the country.

Aspects of Sanders' plans and time in the Liberty Union have been reported before, but the material taken together, including hundreds of newly digitalized newspapers and files from the Liberty Union Party archived at the University of Vermont, paint a fuller portrait of Sanders' views on state and public-controlled industry at the time.


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalwire.com%2F2019%2F03%2F14%2Fsanders-once-called-for-nationalizing-industry%2F

[OhZone]

1. Getting vetted -

Oh well.

[Farmer-Rick]

2. Good for him.

So he started out even further left. Good to know. I started out further right and moved even further left than he is now.

If we nationalize those industries by allowing only the workers who work there to make all the decisions ...even picking the CEOs and their salaries...then we are NOT likely to repeat the Soviet Union and China's mistakes.

[Adrahil]

6. I don't view that as a positive model, personally.

[forklift]

12. aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha

That would be like asking hospital orderlies who the neurosurgeon should be.

[Power 2 the People]

36. +1000

We should have listened to him then. It would have saved us from de-industrialization,de-unionization and the banking collapse of 2008.

[brooklynite]

3. There's a word that defines that, but I can't put my finger on it...

[forklift]

13. Does it start with a C?

I love riddles

[brooklynite]

15. Today's episode is brought to you by the letters "C" and "S" and by the number 2020...

[forklift]

24. Not 1917?

[crazytown]

4. Seize Vermont's electricity companies without compensation

Now that’s socialism!

In 1976, Sanders went even further: calling for the state to seize ownership of Vermont's private electric companies without compensation to investors.

[OhZone]

5. You wonder -

how much of this was known to the GOP in 2016, and they were chomping at the bit to use it, if Sanders had won the Dem nom.

Oh well.

[Farmer-Rick]

9. Like no one knew Sanders had socialist ideas?

All I can say is yeah, so what, he had more liberal ideas before. Not a surprise...what did you expect?

[crazytown]

20. Without compensation?

Nope.

[Farmer-Rick]

21. So, if a corrupted and incompetent corporation runs a local monopoly into the ground.

A monopoly that was built by tax dollars and bought by corporate interests for pennies of its true worth. And then the people decide to take it back, they should pay those incompetent buffoons? Sounds like just desserts to me. Let them take it to court.

[crazytown]

23. Wow

[Farmer-Rick]

28. Well, he wasn't advocating nationalization because the utility corporations were doing great.

I'd be really happy with capitalism too if we didn't have Trump, and Putin, and the Koch brothers and Fox, and the crash, and global warming, and extinction, and starvation, and......

[CrossingTheRubicon]

31. Socialism isn't "more liberal" than Liberalism.

You have it backward.

Seizing the means of production without compensation isn't a "liberal" ideological position.

It is a very anti-liberal stance that is not in keeping with the values of the liberal Democratic Party.

[Farmer-Rick]

33. Says who?

Who says seizing the means of production by We The People isn't liberal? Maybe if a fascist government did it it would be right wing, neocon, Trumpy Dumpy. But we are talking about a democracy taking back control of their electrical services for the good of all their customers.

Besides, they had their chance to be compensated and they decided to do the worse possible job of managing a monopoly that they could. Too bad, so sad, take it to the courts.

[Farmer-Rick]

7. Why not?

In the US about 90% of our electrictity infrastructure was built by tax dollars. Selling off that infrastructure for pennies on the dollar to corporate interests didn't really start for earnest until 1996. In fact 20% of the electricty provided to citizens today is still provided by government entities.

So, taking back a poorly managed electric company is not unheard of. And not compensating a bunch of rich investors who ran their regional monopoly into the ground or should have known it was being mismanaged is called just desserts. They can take it to court if they think their incompetence should be rewarded.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I am not opposed to looking at nationalizing utilities that are natural monopolies.

But damned if I want to buy a car , tv set, computer, or appliance at the government store.

[Farmer-Rick]

10. I agree with you

Natural monopolies should be run by governments or groups of people who will use them.

My shoes should be made by healthy, well fed people who get to decide all their working conditions and get a share of the profits from selling me shoes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. When I lived in Tallahassee the cable company was publicly owned,

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2019, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)

[Farmer-Rick]

35. Yes!!!

Taking back our country one corporate entity at a time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. I am a firm believer in markets except where natural monopolies exist.

I am a firm believer in markets except where natural monopolizes exist. It's like a gift to private corporations. It would be like petitioning the government to be the only gas station in a one hundred mile radius.

[Vogon_Glory]

30. I'm not either, especially after what happened to Enron and ONCOR/Energy Futureds

While I might agree with old-school Republicans (A species hunted to extinction by Far-Right RINO hunters) that private companies tend to operators efficiently than government-owned entities, we have seen what disasters happen when unregulated debt leveraged-buyout capitalism can do to the consumer.

[forklift]

14. Socialism

would be a mild way to express it

[BlueWI]

16. What are the merits of these ideas?

A conversation about comparative economic strategy is overdue.

Do we prefer monopoly capitalism and merger mania over public ownership of key industries? What's the case for both?

I appreciate that the Sanders and Warren campaigns have put these issues on the map.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. What key industries has Elizabeth Warren advocated nationalizing?

[BlueWI]

22. I'm referring to regulation here.

Warren advocates for more focus on the public interest among publicly traded companies and among monetary/lending practices (Accountable Capitalism Act/CFPB leadership).

My point is that her strong advocacy for regulation opens up a space for conversation about comparative economic strategy and systems. Democrats and Republicans have been running scared from those conversations for decades, at least since the early 1980s. Both Sanders and Warren have brought those conversations into public focus, which gives us a better chance for fairer economic policy.

I don't think she's specifically advocated for nationalizing industries, which a few Democrats might have done after the too big to fail fiascos of the 2007-8 cycle. As an independent, I think Sanders advocated for nationalizing or breaking up larger banks and public action to guarantee mortgages. Unfortunately in my opinion, most politicians and the FED preferred to recapitalize the banks at a .75 percent prime lending rate than hold them fully accountable for poor investment strategy and criminal ripoffs of consumers in the housing markets, leaving the banking system vulnerable to this day.

BTW, Sanders' issue positions in the 1970s are about as instructive as Biden's views of busing in the 1970s. It's an indication of intellectual starting points. Nothing wrong with advocating strong economic change in the 1970s such as nationalizing industries - if we had done some aspects of that, we might not be facing the high level of concentrated global ownership that we're facing today.

[forklift]

25. Regulation is not stealing from stockholders nt

[BlueWI]

26. True.

And having a discussion about comparative economic systems is better than ignoring the cataclysmic social, environmental, and political costs of monopoly capitalism. Sanders and Warren get kudos for opening up that discussion.

BTW, not all stockholders in publicly owned companies benefit from capital provided at at .75 percent lending rate from the FED. Privatizing profit but socializing risk - something to avoid, IMO.

[Farmer-Rick]

38. Yeah, but Not enforcing anti-trust laws kind of is

What about all those stockholders in companies who would compete for customers except for the fact that that electric company has a monopoly bought for cheap from the government? I mean you are reducing competition by allowing a monopoly to be run by this corporation. Other corporations can't compete with that. What happened to that imaginary free market capitalist like to talk about?

If that monopolistic electric company then turns around and uses all those profits to buy up other corporations, what about all those stockholders who didn't get that chance to buy up those other corporations because they didn't have as much money because they weren't a monopoly? So how many stockholders do you want to hurt?

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. And Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. And Elizabeth Warren was a Republican

I don't consider this "vetting". It would be vetting if there was a previously unknown recording of Sanders expressing those views now. What about all of the positions that we are glad so many of our Democratic leaders acknowledge having "evolved" on themselves, on drug possession crimes, on LGBTQ issues and the like? Is it "vetting" to point out openly acknowledged position shifts over the course of decades?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. It's "vetting" when you go back 50 years for Bernie.

It’s a divisive attack if you point out during the same time frame Joe Biden said Roe v. Wade “went too far” and that he didn’t think “that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

[TCJ70]

19. The 70s...before I was born.

Who cares? Where’s he at now? I don’t see him advocating for this in the present?

[CrossingTheRubicon]

32. He endorses "Democratic Socialism" every day on the trail.

From the Wikipedia article on Democratic Socialism:

As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production.

[TCJ70]

34. I don't trust any definitions of socialism anymore and judge it on a case by case basis...

...since it seems to mean anything and everything. I hope someone asks Sanders about it.

[MH1]

42. Do you think it might be used in campaign ads by the GOP?

Um, duh.

The question is, can it be used effectively.

If the answer is yes, then we should all care.

I'm not sure, but leaning toward answer = yes.

[TCJ70]

43. They won't have to reach back 50 years to...

...try and scare people with *gasp* socialism! They’re going to do that regardless. So this is stupid.

[gopiscrap]

29. Good I agree with him

the only goal of business is to squeeze as much money out of the consumer for as little cost as possible. Business is intrinsically immoral.

[Devil Child]

37. I support nationalization of major industries

Even more so when such industries engage in unrestricted exploitation of finite resources. This type of "vetting" reinforces my support for Sen. Sanders.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. How about supermarkets?

There's Ralphs, Trader Joes, 99 Cents, Seafood Market, Whole Foods, Sprouts, Target, Wal Mart, Vons, Jons, Gelsons, Pavilllions and Smart and Final near my apartment.

Maybe it would be convenient if there was one government store.

[Devil Child]

41. For supermarkets...

...I'm more in agreement with your thoughts expressed in https://www.democraticunderground.com/128722844#post8

But who knows if we are stuck in a future where the only choice for food is Amazon prime or Walmart, my first preference would be some sincere and fierce monopoly busting.

[David__77]

44. Doesn't concern me.

I can understand advocating public ownership in different economic sectors.

[Gothmog]

45. trump will have fun with issue

Link to tweet