Communist wins election in Denver city council


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

The coming dark age: Denver voters have voted an outright communist, promising to create “community ownership” of property “by any means necessary,” to their local city council.

The winner, Candi CdeBaca, beat the incumbent 52.4 percent to 47.6 percent. Before the election she was very clear about her position and goals.

“I don’t believe our current economic system actually works. Um, capitalism by design is extractive and in order to generate profit in a capitalist system, something has to be exploited, that’s land, labor or resources,” CdeBaca alleged.

“And I think that we’re in late phase capitalism and we know it doesn’t work and we have to move into something new, and I believe in community ownership of land, labor, resources and distribution of those resources,” she continued. “And whatever that morphs into is I think what will serve community the best and I’m excited to usher it in by any means necessary.”

The real story here is the voters, not the candidate. She was very upfront about what she was proposing, and Denver voters apparently agreed with her. Nor is this the only example. American voters are increasingly choosing the Venezuela socialist/communist option, even though empirical evidence in numerous countries over the last century has shown such socialist/communist policies always fail, and they do so routinely in the most horrible way.

Share

14 comments

  • Cotour

    Isn’t Colorado the first state to make marijuana legal?

    The plan is proceeding perfectly, keep them stupid and uneducated and all on drugs and then things can be fixed and “Fundamental change” can take place.

    How about making stupid and emotions illegal instead of words?

    This should be revealed to be a fine example to the rest of the nation as this new elected official gets to execute her plan. Accent on “execute”.

  • Patriot Marc

    And to think, 17, 19 and 19 year old hero’s charged onto Omaha Beach for this?? I am devastated by this. We need to stand together to take our Rppublic back. God help us all.

  • Did no one (voters or press) ask her to lay out how, exactly, her ‘vision’ translated into desired results?

  • wayne

    Cotour-
    Colorado–first State to ‘legalize’ psychedelic-mushrooms.

    pivoting:
    the “highest” point in the Interstate System–

    Driving the Eisenhower Pass (I-70) in Colorado
    (Music by Joe Satriani)
    The Highywayman
    https://youtu.be/iLSRVaqG5-o
    4:44

  • Edward

    From the article: “‘I don’t believe our current economic system actually works. Um, capitalism by design is extractive and in order to generate profit in a capitalist system, something has to be exploited, that’s land, labor or resources,’ CdeBaca alleged.

    She has it backward. It is socialism and communism that extract from the worker everything that he makes. In order to make just food for its population, socialism exploits land, labor, and resources. Once the food is grown, it is not owned by the laborer but is redistributed by the socialist leaders. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The collective owns everything for the greater good. This results in a fixed amount of pie to go around, which is why socialists think that for someone to win then someone else has to lose.

    In Venezuela, it resulted in a reduced amount of pie to go around.

    In a free market capitalist system, the farmer gets to own and sell his own crops. To generate profit in a free market capitalist system, efficiency in the use of land, labor, and resources is necessary, otherwise the guy who creates these efficiencies will eat the lunch of the guy who didn’t. The farmer who learns how to grow more food per acre profits more than the neighboring farmer who does not, and the first farmer can sell his food for less money, making his crop more in demand than his neighbor’s more expensive crop. Everyone else benefits, too, because they have more money (resources) to spend on things other than food, benefiting manufacturers and service providers. This results in more pie to go around, which is why capitalists understand that when they win then everyone else wins, too.

    In any system, everyone looks for the best goods and services that cost the least personal resources. It is the free market capitalist system that rewards the reduction in that cost — that reward is the profit generated by all the people buying the more efficiently produced products. The maker gets to keep what he makes, and he gets to do with it — control it — as he wishes, not as the leadership chooses.

    Not only do free market capitalist systems thrive because of the improved efficiencies, the people thrive, too, because free markets necessarily must make what the buyer wants to buy.

    From the article: ““And I think that we’re in late phase capitalism and we know it doesn’t work and we have to move into something new, and I believe in community ownership of land, labor, resources and distribution of those resources,” she continued.

    Of course she believes in community ownership. She is the one who gets to decide what to do with and how to use these properties, as though she were the owner, and this control is what she considers to be the only win. This is the only beauty of socialism, where everyone is equal, but the leaders are more equal than the others — it is beautiful for the leaders, not the workers who make and lose everything to the control of the leaders.

    Notice that for the socialist or communist to win, everyone else must lose.

    Blair Ivey, her personal control over everything is her desired result.

    She thinks that free market capitalism does not work because in this system she does not get to control anything except whatever she makes. As a politician, she makes nothing. In order to control it all, she must convince the rest of us that it is better for us to give up our control of our own property.

  • Edward,

    You should read my blog sometime, we make many of the same points. Well, you’ll have to look through the archives; haven’t written in a while.

    “Blair Ivey, her personal control over everything is her desired result.”

    One of my points. The other is: why are voters routinely hiring people to government whose economic literacy would shame a 5th Grade essay? The Founders expected that an educated populace would make a modicum of effort to apply their education. Or at least read. It’s the most frustrating thing ever. It seems quality of decision-making is inversely proportional to availability of information.

  • Edward

    Blair Ivey,

    Your “Categories” section (right panel and bottom of page) allows for finding interesting posts on various topics. Here is one post of yours that I found under the “Economics” category, and I agree with much of it:
    https://bkivey.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/capitalism-is-fine-but/

    I have on occasion clicked on your link (blue name) to see if you have written anything interesting lately, but until today have not looked through the archive.

  • wodun

    I think the problem is that we don’t know any different. By that I mean that humans ordinarily don’t disassociate themselves from what they experience and put those experiences in a meaningful context. How many times have you heard people say that Americans don’t have a culture?

    We do have a culture but as insiders, we have internalized it and it is hard to look at things, to disassociate, as an outsider would. We tend to think that things were always the way they are because even though we know history exists, we don’t look at how things are today in the context of history. We experience capitalism and it works but every time a person buys a product, they don’t ponder the supply chain, manufacturing innovations, the spark of creativity, or even the individual lives of the people who made that product.

    Because it just happens, people spend very little time contemplating why it happens and why it works. This means people are not very good at articulating what is taking place and it allows Marxists to use their weasel words to brainwash people.

    Capitalism doesn’t make profits by exploitation. Capitalism makes profits by solving problems. Every link in the chain from the idea to create a product to hiring people is solving people’s problems. The customer needs a product. The worker needs a job. The producer needs materials. It is all a free exchange where people put value on their own time and money. A product that isn’t worth the time or money for a customer will soon find it has neither. A job that isn’t worth the time or money will soon find no one to fill it. Labor is a market too!

    Millions of people are out there solving problems and a small group of government employees or politicians will never be able to match their creativity. But what about seizing the means of production?

    Workers already control the means of production. They control themselves. Labor are just like entrepreneurs in the sense they solve people’s problems. They sell their problem solving ability at the best rate they can and will find a new customer (employer) if they think they can get a better rate for their problem solving (labor).

    Marxists don’t like this because it puts the responsibility on the individual to be the problem solver, to put the work in to make themselves a better product, and to actively look for better opportunities.

  • Alex

    We, are all the Denver-ites for now, and have the government we deserve. CA even more so. MORE SO.

    crum, I would rather enjoy reading about the “solar weather” instead of stupid us.

    Hey! How about those ‘Noctilucent Clouds’ ??

  • wayne

    Tangentially–
    Blair’s Blog is very well written– highly recommend!

  • Cotour

    HOW DUMB DO THE DEMOCRATS NEED PEOPLE TO BE?

    I want to thank Mark Levin for pointing this paradox and fraud to the uninitiated out.

    The subject? Bernie Sanders and the foundation of his beliefs, Communism. In his most recent speech Bernie sites F.D.R. as being a Socialist, but he sites the Stalin U.S.S.R. Communist Constitution in his speech. Bernie Sanders, candidate for president of the United States Of America is a COMMUNIST. (You are not)

    Sound familiar? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-speech-live-stream-defends-democratic-socialism-in-speech-george-washington-university-today-2019-06/

    From the Stalin 1936 Communist Constitution: Chapter X : Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens

    ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality.
    ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure.
    ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in the case of sickness or loss of capacity to work.
    ARTICLE 121. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to education.
    ARTICLE 122. Women in the U.S.S.R. are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life.

    A woman asks Sanders at a town hall in Nevada: “Please stress that socialism is not communism. That’s very, very important that you stress that,” she said. The senator replied, “Thank you. I will, as a matter of fact.”. And then Sanders sites Stalin and the tenets in the Communist Constitution. (How dumb are the people who would support such a fraudulent and deadly philosophy?)

    Their is no such thing as a right to a job, nor a right to healthcare, nor a right housing, nor a right to an income, nor a right to leisure time. There is no right to any of the things that Bernie Sanders and his fellow Leftists and Communists TODAY in America pander to and promote.

    They are all good things to have, but their does not exist a right upon birth to poses them, because they are things. Things are not rights. A right is simply something that protects an individual FROM the abuses of power of the government. Nothing more, nothing less.

    So what in fact Bernie Sanders identifies as problems in America have already been proven to be solvable and solved by Capitalism and freedom. The most people on the planet in all of history have become wealthy and free under the American Constitution and Capitalism, and what Bernie Sanders proposes is well known as to the results, universal death, destruction and oppression.

    How dumb do the Democrats need the people of America to be? Very dumb.

  • pzatchok

    Socialism is close to what we used to have before 1600.

    The King set all prices. So inflation was almost non existent.
    He also told you what to grow on his land ( it was all his land) what to mine and what to produce.
    Your job was determined by your family and so also your social status.

    If one baker decided to set his bread price lower or higher than his competitors he was shut down by the other bakers. Or even the king.

    Once iron was discovered humans had the technology and intelligence to advance rapidly just like we have in the last 300 years but we stagnated under this system for a thousand years.

    Young people do not understand exactly what communism is. They think its all about freedom. As long as they are not directly effected negatively they think its all fine.
    As long as they get an adequate education to live day to day they are fine
    As long as they have the food they want they are fine.
    As long as they have medical insurance they are fine.
    As long as they have a place to live they are fine.
    As long as they have a LITTLE spending money for their personal use they are fine.
    They do not want pressure in any form. As long as they have what they want and need they are fine with the government making all the decisions.
    No responsibility is their life goal.

    Anyone with the ambition to gain more is looked at like they are cavemen and or brainless, heartless republicans.
    They just do not understand that ambition and greed are what drives innovation and advancement in all fields.

  • Edward

    Alex asked: “Hey! How about those ‘Noctilucent Clouds’ ??

    I haven’t seen them, personally, as I live outside the best latitudes, but you don’t have to read the posts that do not interest you.

    pzatchok wrote: “Young people do not understand exactly what communism is. They think its all about freedom.

    If getting free stuff and unearned rewards is what they think freedom is, but I have a different take on it. They think that communism is all about equality, where there are no winners or losers, just participants and easy trophies. In the Soviet Union, a TV show contestant didn’t win money, just his 15 minutes of fame.

    For today’s young Americans, it is all about equality for all, even for those who don’t work to earn what they want or need. It isn’t fair for one person to get ahead just because he works harder or smarter, is talented or skilled, or inherits wealth or brains. They don’t understand why it is fair for someone who earned a lot to pass on that prosperity to his children, who did not earn that prosperity.

    In case you missed it, for today’s young Americans the word “equality” means equality of lifestyle (often expressed as equality of outcome), not equal application of laws (often expressed as equality of opportunity). For them, it is fine that Hillary Clinton is a multiple-felon, because she is deserving of good things for supporting her cheating husband when he most needed support. It is also fine that Trump be overthrown, because he prevented her from getting her deserts. For them, the law does not apply to Clinton, and there ought to be a law that applies to Trump.

    Young people look around them and see others who have stuff, such as nice cars or houses, that they, the young people, cannot afford. They get jealous, because they were raised by schools where everyone was equally rewarded, and now they live in a world where they have to do actual work in order to get rewarded. There are no more free promotions just for existing. For them, ambition is bad, and greed is even worse — except greed in themselves, because they expect something for nothing.

    What is worse is that because today’s youth have not been challenged or have not gone through any adversity of any kind, few are prepared to face a challenge or face adversity. Few of them have been raised to take on any responsibility.

    Letting someone else take on all the responsibility comes naturally for them, so they will always be children who are dependent on a different type of parent, such as Candi CdeBaca.

  • Ian C.

    Edward,

    I’d like to add one perhaps important aspect that drives many of the young not only to the usual idealistic but even radical views. Compared to generations before at the same age, many of today’s young can’t afford a decent lifestyle. Many go or went to college, studying something not rewarded sufficiently on the job market and that leaves them with debt. It’s a huge (emotional) burden for a lot of them. They feel tricked. Rightfully so in many cases, as they got either told that it doesn’t matter what they study (e.g. feminist dance therapy) or they fell for the STEM propaganda (only the T and E pay off).

    We should consider that their views are a response to (real or imagined) hardships imposed on them, which made them susceptible to the more radical ideologies. In the same way we get radical leftists fighting gentrification, radical right-wingers who got loads of immigrants shoved into their village, radicalized loners who can’t participate in society, and so on. Something happened to them and it obviously got ignored.

    I also tend to look whether a demographic component might play a role as well. Denver is 53% White, 31% Hispanic, 11% Afro-American. I’ve observed that, where Whites are in substantial decline, Whites vs. non-Whites are prone to vote each for rather radical positions. Perhaps to be seen in the context of the ongoing polarization.

    “2016 Elections by Race and Sex”
    https://i.imgur.com/fKd9AAP.png

    The young with student debt vote for radical redistribution positions. Whites who see that they’re demographically losing their power and were affected by bad economic policies voted for an outsider (to the political establishment). In effect minorities take on radical positions as they fear their expected wins might be stopped.

    I’m speculating right now. Those are — in all innocence — hypotheses, because I want to understand what’s going on. Usually most people (of both sides) aren’t that radical, but circumstances and self-reinforcing dynamics can get radical positions well established and the moderate views get muted. Super dangerous. And it’s going on for some time. We need to be careful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *